You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stdcxx.apache.org by "Travis Vitek (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2007/08/24 02:48:30 UTC
[jira] Updated: (STDCXX-530) create test 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-530?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Travis Vitek updated STDCXX-530:
--------------------------------
Attachment: 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
test implementation
> create test 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STDCXX-530
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-530
> Project: C++ Standard Library
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: 22. Localization, Thread Safety
> Affects Versions: 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4
> Reporter: Travis Vitek
> Assignee: Travis Vitek
> Fix For: 4.2
>
> Attachments: 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
>
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Re: [jira] Updated: (STDCXX-530) create test 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Travis Vitek wrote:
>
[...]
> I have yet to see a failure in the num_get.mt test.
Isn't that odd, though? The num_put test does fail, even if not
consistently, and the numpunct one fails pretty much at the drop
of a hat. I don't think they fail because of a bug in the facets
themselves but rather in the locale cache. And if numpunct were
buggy, that should affect both num_put and num_get. So why does
the num_get test never fail? Any ideas?
Martin
> I've only tested on
> win32/vc8 and linux/gcc though. That brings up an important question
> that isn't covered on the patch submission rules page. Should I be
> testing on all platforms available, or should I just do enough testing
> to convince myself that the test is portable and is working correctly?
>
> Travis
>
Re: [jira] Updated: (STDCXX-530) create test 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Travis Vitek wrote:
>
>
>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> Travis, this test looks too good -- there's nothing for me to pick
>> on, not even formatting! ;-)
>>
>
> I'm _finally_ getting used to it.
Glad to hear that! :)
>
>> I'm running it on a 4 CPU dual core Xeon against a locally modified
>> trunk and so far so good. Has it ever failed in your tests?
>>
>
> I have yet to see a failure in the num_get.mt test. I've only tested on
> win32/vc8 and linux/gcc though. That brings up an important question
> that isn't covered on the patch submission rules page. Should I be
> testing on all platforms available, or should I just do enough testing
> to convince myself that the test is portable and is working correctly?
Verifying new tests on a couple of platforms with different
compilers should be good enough. The bigger the differences
between the platforms and compilers the better (e.g., little
endian vs big endian, 32 vs 64 bit, etc.) Not-trivial library
changes and extensive changes to existing tests or examples
should be tested on more than two platforms. Small changes
can be tested on just one.
IMO, it's a judgment call that will depend on the nature of
the changes and how comfortable you are with the area you're
working on.
Martin
RE: [jira] Updated: (STDCXX-530) create test 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
Posted by Travis Vitek <tv...@quovadx.com>.
>Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>Travis, this test looks too good -- there's nothing for me to pick
>on, not even formatting! ;-)
>
I'm _finally_ getting used to it.
>
>I'm running it on a 4 CPU dual core Xeon against a locally modified
>trunk and so far so good. Has it ever failed in your tests?
>
I have yet to see a failure in the num_get.mt test. I've only tested on
win32/vc8 and linux/gcc though. That brings up an important question
that isn't covered on the patch submission rules page. Should I be
testing on all platforms available, or should I just do enough testing
to convince myself that the test is portable and is working correctly?
Travis
Re: [jira] Updated: (STDCXX-530) create test 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Travis, this test looks too good -- there's nothing for me to pick
on, not even formatting! ;-)
I'm running it on a 4 CPU dual core Xeon against a locally modified
trunk and so far so good. Has it ever failed in your tests?
Martin
Travis Vitek (JIRA) wrote:
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-530?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
>
> Travis Vitek updated STDCXX-530:
> --------------------------------
>
> Attachment: 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
>
> test implementation
>
>> create test 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> Key: STDCXX-530
>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-530
>> Project: C++ Standard Library
>> Issue Type: Sub-task
>> Components: 22. Localization, Thread Safety
>> Affects Versions: 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4
>> Reporter: Travis Vitek
>> Assignee: Travis Vitek
>> Fix For: 4.2
>>
>> Attachments: 22.locale.num.get.mt.cpp
>>
>>
>
>