[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: faridz
Date: Tue Sep 18 11:01:47 2007
New Revision: 577002
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=577002&view=rev
Log:
2007-09-18 Farid Zaripov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* 20.temp.buffer.cpp (run_test): Use _RWSTD_LONG_MAX instead
of _RWSTD_PTRDIFF_MAX because BigStruct parametrized by
unsigned long type and sizeof (_RWSTD_PTRDIFF_T) can be
greater that sizeof (unsigned long).
Shouldn't that be the other way around? I mean, wouldn't a more
robust solution be to parametrize BigStruct on ptrdiff_t so that
it can be instantiated with the largest possible value even on
LLP64 like Windows?
Martin
Modified:
incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/utilities/20.temp.buffer.cpp
Modified: incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/utilities/20.temp.buffer.cpp
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/utilities/20.temp.buffer.cpp?rev=577002&r1=577001&r2=577002&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/utilities/20.temp.buffer.cpp (original)
+++ incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/utilities/20.temp.buffer.cpp Tue Sep 18
11:01:47 2007
@@ -443,9 +443,9 @@
// avoid instantiating test on very large structs
// to prevent failures (at compile or run-time) due
// to compiler bugs
- test_failure ((BigStruct<_RWSTD_PTRDIFF_MAX / 2>*)0, 0);
- test_failure ((BigStruct<_RWSTD_PTRDIFF_MAX - 1>*)0, 0);
- test_failure ((BigStruct<_RWSTD_PTRDIFF_MAX>*)0, 0);
+ test_failure ((BigStruct<_RWSTD_LONG_MAX / 2>*)0, 0);
+ test_failure ((BigStruct<_RWSTD_LONG_MAX - 1>*)0, 0);
+ test_failure ((BigStruct<_RWSTD_LONG_MAX>*)0, 0);
#else
