This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch] Clean up sbumpc, move back _M_buf_size, do not special case unbuffered _M_underflow...


Quoting Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com>:

> Paolo, didn't you reference some pbackfail tests in the earlier
> discussion of this patch? I didn't see these new tests in your
> ChangeLog: are they no longer relevant? Or are you just going to add
> them later? 
> 
> Here's what I'm remembering:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2003-06/msg00079.html
> 
> No biggie. Please check this in as-is.

Hi Benjamin.

Well, actually for sputbackc I applied the scheme you followed for the other
streambuf inlines: first I split the existing buffered test 1.cc in three parts,
for in, out and in|out openmodes. In fact the in part was missing and I added it
(this catched many bugs in my first tries!). Then, I created the corresponding
2.x counterparts (2-in.cc, 2-io.cc and 2-out.cc), for the unbuffered case, as
you did, if I'm not mistaken. I think that the sputbackc inline is now
sufficiently tested!

As far as the pbackfail virtual is concerned (which, by the way, I didn't touch
at all) I agree that some tests are needed, both for the buffered and the
unbuffered case. I plan to work on this but _after_ having prepared the
unbuffered counterpart of the seekoff/seekpos testcases, if you agree. If you
think that some pbackfail tests are more urgent, I would be happy to change my
priorities, just let me know!

Paolo.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]