From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-65257-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8847 invoked by alias); 26 Dec 2002 14:53:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8823 invoked from network); 26 Dec 2002 14:53:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 26 Dec 2002 14:53:23 -0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id gBQEqk1F004283;
	Thu, 26 Dec 2002 15:52:46 +0100
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gBQEqjs3004282;
	Thu, 26 Dec 2002 15:52:45 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f
To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Analysis of solaris2 27_io/istream_extractor_arith.cc failures
References: <200212261347.IAA14641@caip.rutgers.edu>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <200212261347.IAA14641@caip.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Integrable Solutions
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 19:16:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3adiszvb6.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01431.txt.bz2

"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:

[...]

| I'd like to chop out the particular code (test12) into a new file and
| xfail just that test.

I believe that is a sensible approach.

[...]

| Patch to follow after some testing.  Any suggestions for the name of
| the new split out file?  Using istream_extractor_arith2 didn't seem
| very descriptive.

Well, I'm not sure we will come up with a naming scheme that is
  a) sensical, i.e. descriptive;
  b) matches standard description. i.e. the paragraph in the Standard;
     specificationp;
  c) scalable;
  d) easy to use.

I suspect that, somehow, we will end up with numbers.  Therefore I
would suggest the testcases be named after the title of the
paragraphes that describe them in the C++ definition text.  I know
Benjamin is skeptical about numbering, so I would appreciate to have
his input on this suggestion.

-- Gaby