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] | |
... one final comment ;)Well ok even if I don't know if you remember but in my first patch submition I asked for a way to check that a test fail with an expected output. The output with a simple __builtin_abort won't be the same as the one obtained when running the test in debug mode. As for the moment I cannot make the test as accurate as I would like I will do as you propose.
On 08/18/2010 03:11 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
About this: maybe you can remove the explicit -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG and thenAlso, I see various testcases defining explicitly _GLIBCXX_DEBUG: normally we don't do that: check-debug takes care of testing the debug-mode behavior, uniformly. Please see if you can remove those explicit defines in the testcases.
check in the testcase whether_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is defined or not: if it's
defined just run the normal test, otherwise call by hand
__builtin_abort(). In this way you are sure the test will consistently
xfail at runtime in all cases.
Paolo.Sorry, I knew it, just a mistake.
PS: don't diff the Changelog additions, when submitting patches. Instead
attach separately the new Changelog lines. See my patches, for examples.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |