This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: regex patch
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: stephen dot webb at bregmasoft dot ca
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:21:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: regex patch
- References: <201006181332.51474.stephenw.webb@bregmasoft.ca>
On 18 June 2010 18:32, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
>
> (1) I have two test cases that fail because the functionality has not yet been
> implemented. ?What is the standard operating procedure for this? ?I'd rather
> have failing tests cases that eventually get fixed than to have the problems
> missed because the test cases are absent or xfailed.
Is it functionality in <regex> or elsewhere in the library? In any
case, the tests could be checked in as XFAILs.
I don't think we're any more/less likely to forget about unimplemented
features but I think it's better to have them present and XFAILed than
not have them at all.
For a lot of the C++0x components there are TODO comments in the code
and the cxx0x_status.xml section of the manual can be used to note
incomplete/missing features.
> (2) My autotools version is out of synch with the one used to generate the
> generated files. ?Getting an exact match may take until next week. ?Is it OK
> not to commit regenerated files? ?What is the usual policy on this?
I don't think you should miss those files from the commit. If you send
me changes I can regen the dependent files.