Re: STDCXX fork
On 06/26/11 10:31 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On 2011/6/26 C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: Do any of your patches fix these and if so which one(s)? Do you have reduced test cases or which test suite? Yes, the vast majority of the patches are about C++2003 conformance. C++VS - Perennial C++ Validation Suite (CPPVS) http://www.peren.com/pages/cppvs_set.htm Yes we do have reduced test cases for the violations, but we cannot publish them because Perennial CPPVS must be licensed. PathScale has a Perennial license and feel free to privately email which issues the patches specifically fix. Thanks
Re: STDCXX fork
2011/6/26 C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com: PathScale has a Perennial license and feel free to privately email which issues the patches specifically fix. Great, then PathScale can run the Perennial C++ validation tests on PathScale's recently published stdcxx fork. I looked at the github code published by PathScale and it is obvious to me that it has not been validated against *any* C++2003 validation test harness. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
Re: STDCXX fork
On 06/27/11 01:17 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote: 2011/6/26 C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com: PathScale has a Perennial license and feel free to privately email which issues the patches specifically fix. Your false statements are annoying and unnecessary. Please don't avoid the question as I'm trying to help review your changes. Either publicly or privately email which patch fixes which Perennial test. (If in fact you've ran them at all)
Re: STDCXX fork
2011/6/27 C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com: Your false statements are annoying and unnecessary. I deeply regret that I am annoying you. Please don't avoid the question as I'm trying to help review your changes. Either publicly or privately email which patch fixes which Perennial test. (If in fact you've ran them at all) Quite frankly, I really don't need your help in reviewing my patches. They've already been reviewed. My current job description does not require me to help you run the Perennial validation tests, or to provide you with any information about the Perennial test results. As a matter of fact, I don't even have to provide you with patches at all. I am doing this as a courtesy: you stated that you wanted to look at the Solaris patches. You work for a compiler writer, and you stated you have a Perennial license. You should, therefore, be able to run the Perennial tests yourself. I stand by my previous statement: you have not validated the github fork of stdcxx against any validation test harness. Had you done so, several tests would/should have failed. Had you corrected the stdcxx code causing these failures (which you have not, I have verified that the violations are still there), several tests from the apache stdcxx test harness would have failed, and these tests would have required patches too. I do not see the necessary code changes, and I can tell all this by looking at the PathScale stdcxx fork code. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
