> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:17 AM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: STDCXX tests fails and reasons [MSVC]
>
> > Another problem in that test is difference between
> > char_traits<char>::eof() == int(-1)
> > and char_traits<wchar_t>::eof() == int (65536).
>
> char_traits<wchar_t>::eof() should equal WEOF. Is WEOF equal to
> 65536 on Windows?
Yes. Below is a definition of the WEOF in wctype.h (MSVC 8):
#define WEOF (wint_t)(0xFFFF)
> The test probably assumes that EOF is the
> same as WEOF which may not be a safe assumption.
Exactly right.
> > The basic_stringbuf<>::pbackfail() test
> > (line 637) expected EOF == -1 and issues rw_error() diagnostic on
> > whar_t tests.
>
> Is this still 27.stringbuf.virtuals.cpp? I don't see any
> rw_error() in there.
Line 637 is the first line with failed test (EOF expected, WEOF got).
// +----------------------------------------- initial sequence
(if any)
// | +---------------------------------- open mode
// | | +------------------------ gbump (gptr offset)
// | | | +-------------------- pbackfail argument
// | | | | +---------------- expected return
value
// | | | | | +----------- number of putback
positions
// | | | | | | +-------- number of read
positions
// | | | | | | | +----- number of write
positions
// | | | | | | | |
// V V V V V V V V
TEST (0, 0, 0, 'c', EOF, 0, 0, -1);
Farid.
