This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Fix 22_locale/time_get/get_weekday/char/38081-.cc tests for glibc 2.17
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Julian Brown <julian at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux dot org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:08:26 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, libstdc++] Fix 22_locale/time_get/get_weekday/char/38081-.cc tests for glibc 2.17
- References: <20130211153359.74f27ab4@octopus> <511927E9.email@example.com> <CAMe9rOoS51Hz-VggwJiUqnT8G3Wj-zAPQFfhB52EacmazFOcNw@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/11/2013 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Paolo Carlini <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 02/11/2013 04:33 PM, Julian Brown wrote:
>>> It seems that glibc 2.17 changes the abbreviated names of weekdays for
>>> "ru_RU" locales by removing an extraneous ".", as described in:
>>> An earlier patch (circa glibc 2.14) changed (IIUC!) archaic/unusual
>>> three-letter abbreviations to more-common two-letter abbreviations, but
>>> included dots after each weekday name, which was apparently still wrong.
>>> But, the two tests of this feature in the libstdc++ testsuite expect
>>> those dots to be present, so they fail.
>>> So, the attached patch simply removes the expectation that dots are
>>> present in the abbreviated names from the libstdc++ tests in question,
>>> if the glibc version in use is recent enough.
>>> The tests pass (with a current gcc, trunk eglibc) with the attached
>>> patch, and fail (for me) without it (cross-testing to ARM Linux, for
>>> no particular reason). OK to apply?
>> I think it's Ok, yes. Thanks. However, I would appreciate if somebody with a
>> glibc 2.17 system at hand could double check. Maybe HJ?
> I am not familiar with locale. CC to glibc mailing list.
glibc 2.17 and eglibc 2.17 are so close that it should be fine
to test just one. I'd think the change should be fine for libstdc++.
Upstream will be working to reduce the differences between eglibc
and glibc so eventually these reports will just say "glibc" in
their testing notes.
Does that make sense?