Re: STDCXX tests fails and reasons [MSVC]

[Martin Sebor]

Farid Zaripov wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:17 AM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: STDCXX tests fails and reasons [MSVC]

  Another problem in that test is difference between
char_traits<char>::eof() == int(-1)
and char_traits<wchar_t>::eof() == int (65536).

char_traits<wchar_t>::eof() should equal WEOF. Is WEOF equal to
65536 on Windows?

  Yes. Below is a definition of the WEOF in wctype.h (MSVC 8):

#define WEOF (wint_t)(0xFFFF)

The test probably assumes that EOF is the same as WEOF which may not be a safe assumption.

  Exactly right.

So let's fix it :)

I didn't look very carefully (it's been over a year since I wrote
it) but I wonder if we could fix it by translating the EOF used
in test cases to char_traits<charT>::eof() in the test function.

Martin

The basic_stringbuf<>::pbackfail() test

(line 637) expected EOF == -1 and issues rw_error() diagnostic on whar_t tests.

Is this still 27.stringbuf.virtuals.cpp? I don't see any rw_error() in there.

  Line 637 is the first line with failed test (EOF expected, WEOF got).

    //    +----------------------------------------- initial sequence
(if any)
    //    |      +---------------------------------- open mode
    //    |      |         +------------------------ gbump (gptr offset)
    //    |      |         |   +-------------------- pbackfail argument
    //    |      |         |   |   +---------------- expected return
value
    //    |      |         |   |   |    +----------- number of putback
positions
    //    |      |         |   |   |    |  +-------- number of read
positions
    //    |      |         |   |   |    |  |  +----- number of write
positions
    //    |      |         |   |   |    |  |  |
    //    V      V         V   V   V    V  V  V
    TEST (0,     0,        0, 'c', EOF, 0, 0, -1);

Farid.