This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Analysis of solaris2 27_io/istream_extractor_arith.cc failures
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 26 Dec 2002 15:52:45 +0100
- Subject: Re: Analysis of solaris2 27_io/istream_extractor_arith.cc failures
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <200212261347.IAA14641@caip.rutgers.edu>
"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:
[...]
| I'd like to chop out the particular code (test12) into a new file and
| xfail just that test.
I believe that is a sensible approach.
[...]
| Patch to follow after some testing. Any suggestions for the name of
| the new split out file? Using istream_extractor_arith2 didn't seem
| very descriptive.
Well, I'm not sure we will come up with a naming scheme that is
a) sensical, i.e. descriptive;
b) matches standard description. i.e. the paragraph in the Standard;
specificationp;
c) scalable;
d) easy to use.
I suspect that, somehow, we will end up with numbers. Therefore I
would suggest the testcases be named after the title of the
paragraphes that describe them in the C++ definition text. I know
Benjamin is skeptical about numbering, so I would appreciate to have
his input on this suggestion.
-- Gaby