This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ Standard Question
- From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 11:07:08 -0600
- Subject: Re: C++ Standard Question
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54C16C36 dot 7090409 at oarcorp dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 11 dot 1501222239310 dot 7945 at stedding dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <54C17495 dot 5090705 at oarcorp dot com> <20150123155552 dot GP3360 at redhat dot com> <54C27CA4 dot 9060608 at oarcorp dot com> <20150123165947 dot GR3360 at redhat dot com>
On 1/23/2015 10:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23/01/15 10:53 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Is there a better way to automate a signature compliance? To tweak
>> what they have done?
> Testing member function signatures for compliance is inherently
> flawed, they just shouldn't do it.
> I would say they should be testing that the function can be called on
> a non-const object and that it behaves as specified, rather than
> testing for a specific signature.
That's more or less how the RTEMS API signature tests work for C. We declare
a variable of each type and pass it into the method including only the
POSIX says you should.
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985