Wed Jul 3 11:38:00 GMT 2002
> I have run across a similar issue a few times, and
> have even submitted a GNATs report (PR 3946) almost a
> year ago.
Yikes.... sorry about this.
The test cases are nice. However, integrating the negative test isn't so
straightforward, as the autoptr.cc testcase is already quite full of
stuff, and requires linking and executing in addition to just
compilation. (Thus, compilation errors as suggested would result in
general failure for this testfile, not what should go in, as the
proposed tests currently stand.)
I'm thinking of just adding a testsuite/negative toplevel directory for
the negative tests (currently map_operator.cc, set_operator.cc also
qualify.) I'm not quite sure what to do though. Thoughts, anybody?
Might be easier to just add a spot specifically for negative tests. We
need negative tests too. (ie, the test passes if compilation fails).
I'm still thinking about this.
> Is there any hope that these two simple and mostly
> obvious fixes into 3.1.1?
I'll put it in.
> BTW will we ever get the online compiler back? That
> thing was awesome!
Agreed! Talk to Mark and the folks at codesourcery. Jeffrey Oldham did
this, I think.
More information about the Libstdc++