Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-04 01:25:42

Robert Ramey wrote:

>>However, I'm really suspicious of passing wchar_t as unsigned shorts.
>>wchar_t is 32 bits on some compilers, and gcc is one of them -- which
>>means you're loosing some data.
> very good, the whole wchar_t <-> int thing is going to have to be looked
> at a little more. Oh then there's the case where wchar_t is just a
> typedef
> for some int.

Guess you'll have to figure out what's the widest type which can keep
wchar_t on a current compiler, using some metaprogramming.

> I notice that all the wide chare tests are failing so it
> seems there's a little more to be done here in the short term as well.

Most likely.

> I'm intrigues that xml_warchive tests pass as they use wchar as well. You
> might want to double check the output. In my case they all intially came
> up as "pass" even the gcc aborted imediately with a stack dump!
>>I'll probably look at test_delete test next. Any ideas how to debug it, or
>>what could go wrong?
> I'm sure it fails in some sort of catastrophic way so I shouldn't be too
> hard.

Unfortunately, it's not so. If you look at

You'll see that it fails because some pointers are not deleted. I am yet to
figure out what the test does, exactly.

- Volodya

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at