This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [patch] Improving shared_ptr for C++0x
- From: "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: "Benjamin Kosnik" <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Paolo Carlini" <pcarlini at suse dot de>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:10:55 +0000
- Subject: Re: [patch] Improving shared_ptr for C++0x
- References: <4348dea50711131546n63e7f83brc8bfd1b15e6fab6c@mail.gmail.com> <473BB460.9080207@suse.de> <4348dea50711151745t1a3cb3f0p584bbe30c21eec5d@mail.gmail.com> <473D7D2A.7060002@suse.de> <4348dea50712091112v5e6ca88ai17e76ec22ca41c88@mail.gmail.com> <20071210123157.3568decc@concorde.artheist.org>
On 10/12/2007, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I haven't done so, but we should really duplicate some of the
> > shared_ptr testsuite to test in both TR1 and C++0x mode because the
> > implementations are now different in parts. As a quick hack I
> > duplicated all the relevant tests and changed them to use
> > std::shared_ptr instead of tr1::shared_ptr, so I can confirm that both
> > implementations pass all the tests, but you can't tell that just from
> > the tests in subversion. We should decide the best way to do this
> > without too much duplication.
>
> Yes.
>
> You should be testing std::shared_ptr in 20_util/shared_ptr, not
> in the testsuite/tr1/ directories. (The type_traits bits are
> tested this way too.) Please fix that up pre-checkin.
>
> The duplication is unfortunate but given the divergence, necessary IMHO.
OK, I'll start work on copying those test files now.
> Thanks for adding the docs! A direct link to (duplicated in your CL
> entry) shared_ptr.html should be added in documentation.html, say in
> "General Utilities/Memory." In-line with auto_ptr.
Will do.
Thanks for the feedback,
Jon