This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libstdc++ test suite still drives machine into swap
- To: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Subject: Re: libstdc++ test suite still drives machine into swap
- From: Stephen M. Webb <stephen at bregmasoft dot com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:26:15 -0400
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CRYPTOCard Corporation
- References: <email@example.com> <01080204315601.31879@swebb-slack> <20010801170423.A2320@disaster.jaj.com>
- Reply-To: stephen at bregmasoft dot com
On Wed, 01 Aug 2001, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 04:24:46AM -0400, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> > Keep in mind that all of the max_size member functions are broken for
> > all the containers, it's just that there are no automated testsuite entires for
> > them (yet).
> Sorry, this is the first I can recall hearing of this. Can you point me
> to the right place in the archives? (Has this been brought up before?)
I can't say if it's been brought up before, but since using the result of any
tests of max_size on any containers (or anything using the default allocator)
will have the same exhaust-the-memory-till-you-die effect as basic_string,
I thought it was relevant. I guess it's on the recod now.
I noticed while I was trying to write some fairly comprehensive test
suites that all the containers simply return size_type(-1) for max_size.
That's incorrect for a number of reasons, least of which is that's not the
behaviour mandated by the standard, but it also means valid tests using
max_size would kill my machine regardless of whether the underlying
malloc lies or not, so I'm not including a test for it. Even with that ulimit
fix to dejagnu, I can't guarantee certain categories of tests are valid unless
max_size returns valid numbers, although I can still run them without fear
of killing my machine.
Unfortunately the fix for max_size is somewhat large and convoluted. It
would require proper (standard-mandated) support for allocators in the
containers, which should be a desireable thing anyway. It would also
require that malloc not lie or that the default allocator work around that
I though the first order of business before proposing such a change was to
develop a comprehensive regression and conformance test suite, one that
runs without killing my machine. That's where what you were talking about
Stephen M. Webb