stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: STDCXX-970 and locale tests
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:21:10 GMT
If there are deficiencies/failures in the test that you plan
to work on fixing I would suggest doing that first, and making
other improvements only after the fixes have been verified.
I see no problem with removing some of the old Visual C++
cruft (e.g., workarounds for MSVC 6 bugs), but again, I'd
suggest to make these changes after fixing any bugs (unless
the workarounds themselves are causing the failures).


On 10/06/2012 02:54 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
> On 10/01/12 11:06, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 10/01/2012 06:57 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>> Also, I see that the localization tests do not make use of input files,
>>> unlike the older Rogue Wave tests. Is that a policy going forward that
>>> the tests do not make use of external input files?
>> The tests hardcode locale values in order to guarantee consistent
>> results, even if the external locale databases change. There also
>> is a makefile target that builds all the stdcxx locales. That's
>> just to exercise the locale utility programs. I think there also
>> should be a test that uses localedef to build a subset of these
>> locales, runs the locale utility to dump the contents of the built
>> database, and then localedef again to rebuild the database. Then
>> it compares the result of the first and second build (or it may
>> do three stages to normalize things) to make sure they match.
> I have dusted the 22.locale.collate.cpp test file, removing old
> workarounds, and tests for which we don't have the input anymore.
> The important finding of this exercise is that the test fails in the
> collation of wide strings with embedded NUL's. The wide facet
> specialization uses wcscoll, if available, but does not take into
> account embedded NULs, like the narrow specialization does.
> I am attaching the full test and the diff (which is quite hard to read).
> As is, the test has got a mere facelift with no substantive improvements.
> Thanks,
> Liviu

View raw message