Farid Zaripov wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[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.