[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: faridz
Date: Fri Feb 23 09:04:11 2007
New Revision: 511019
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511019
Log:
2007-02-23 Farid Zaripov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ChangeLog:
* 23.list.h: New file with definitions of helpers used in
clause 23.list tests.
* 23.containers.cpp: #included 23.list.h; removed definition
of the temporary struct ListIds; _rw_list_sigcat filled by code.
Added:
incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/include/23.list.h (with props)
Modified:
incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/src/23.containers.cpp
Added: incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/include/23.list.h
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/include/23.list.h?view=auto&rev=511019
==============================================================================
--- incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/include/23.list.h (added)
+++ incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/include/23.list.h Fri Feb 23 09:04:11 2007
@@ -0,0 +1,285 @@
[...]
+template <class InputIter1, class InputIter2>
+static inline bool
^^^^^^
I suspect the static linkage is going to cause the same problem
as in 23.limits.traps. We're already getting warnings from Sun
C++:
CC -c -D_RWSTD_USE_CONFIG -I$(TOPDIR)/include -I$(BUILDDIR)/include
-I$(TOPDIR)/../rwtest -I$(TOPDIR)/tests/include -library=%none -O
-xarch=v9 +w $(TOPDIR)/tests/src/23.containers.cpp
"$(TOPDIR)/tests/include/23.list.h", line 228: Warning (Anachronism):
"static" is not allowed and is being ignored.
[...]
+template <class List>
+struct ListState
+{
+ typedef typename List::const_iterator ListCIter;
+ typedef typename List::const_pointer ListCPtr;
+
+ _RWSTD_SIZE_T size_;
+ ListCIter* iters_;
+ ListCPtr* ptrs_;
+
+ ListState (List const & lst) : size_ (lst.size ()), iters_ (0), ptrs_ (0)
+ {
The formatting convention is not to drop the curly brace in
definitions of member functions in the body of the "parent"
class.
+ iters_ = new ListCIter [size_];
+ ptrs_ = new ListCPtr [size_];
+
+ _RWSTD_SIZE_T index = 0;
+ for (ListCIter it = lst.begin (), end = lst.end ();
+ it != end; ++it, ++index) {
+
+ iters_ [index] = it;
+ ptrs_ [index] = &*it;
+ }
+ }
+
+ ~ListState ()
+ {
Same here.
+ delete [] iters_;
+ delete [] ptrs_;
+ }
+
+ // invokes rw_assert() to verify that two states are the same
+ void assert_equal (const ListState& state, int line,
+ int case_line, const char* when) const
+ {
And here.
+ const int equal = size_ == state.size_
It probably doesn't matter (I don't think any compiler issues
a warning) but I suppose the type of the constant should be int.
Martin
