stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Teleman <>
Subject Re: STDCXX "fork"
Date Mon, 27 Jun 2011 05:23:41 GMT
2011/6/27 "C. Bergström" <>:

> Your false statements are annoying and unnecessary.

I deeply regret that I am annoying you.

> Please don't avoid the question as I'm trying to help review your changes.
>  Either publicly or privately email which patch fixes which Perennial test.
>  (If in fact you've ran them at all)

Quite frankly, I really don't need your help in reviewing my patches.
They've already been reviewed.

My current job description does not require me to help you run the
Perennial validation tests, or to provide you with any information
about the Perennial test results. As a matter of fact, I don't even
have to provide you with patches at all. I am doing this as a
courtesy: you stated that you wanted to look at the Solaris patches.

You work for a compiler writer, and you stated you have a Perennial
license. You should, therefore, be able to run the Perennial tests

I stand by my previous statement: you have not validated the github
fork of stdcxx against any validation test harness. Had you done so,
several tests would/should have failed. Had you corrected the stdcxx
code causing these failures (which you have not, I have verified that
the violations are still there), several tests from the apache stdcxx
test harness would have failed, and these tests would have required
patches too. I do not see the necessary code changes, and I can tell
all this by looking at the PathScale stdcxx fork code.


Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.

View raw message