first commit

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/Makefile.inc

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+# -*- makefile -*- Time-stamp: <04/10/17 21:16:38 ptr>
+
+PRGNAME = compiler_test
+SRC_CPP = ttei1.cpp ttei2.cpp ttei3.cpp ttei4.cpp ttei5.cpp ttei6.cpp ttei7.cpp \
+          partial_spec.cpp movable.cpp
+SRC_CC = eh.cc

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/README

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+1. About this tests
+
+This is tests to check whether compiler understand or not some language
+construction. It is NOT tests for language support libraries, only tests for
+compiler!
+
+The main purposes of this tests is to help for developers to find correct
+workarounds, if compiler don't understand some (correct) language constructions.
+
+--------------------------------------------------------
+
+2. Compilation
+
+Compilation with GNU Make utility and gcc compiler:
+
+make -f gcc.mak -k
+
+
+
+--------------------------------------------------------
+
+Notes about tests.
+
+ttei1.cpp, ttei2.cpp, ttei3.cpp, ttei4.cpp, ttei5.cpp:
+
+tests for template-in-the-template explicit specialization.
+Indeed ttei3.cpp, ttei4.cpp, ttei5.cpp suggest syntax not approved by standard
+(14.7.3, paragraphs 16--18), but ttei3.cpp, ttei4.cpp accepted (recheck!) by VC6,
+while ttei5.cpp accepted by gcc before 3.4.0.

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/StTerm-order/Makefile

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+# -*- Makefile -*- Time-stamp: <03/07/09 18:08:47 ptr>
+
+SRCROOT := ../../../build
+COMPILER_NAME := gcc
+
+# WITHOUT_STLPORT = 1
+# STLPORT_DIR := ../../..
+include Makefile.inc
+include ${SRCROOT}/Makefiles/top.mak
+
+#CXXFLAGS += -fuse-cxa-atexit
+LDFLAGS += -Wl,-rpath=${STLPORT_LIB_DIR}

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/StTerm-order/Makefile.inc

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+# -*- makefile -*- Time-stamp: <02/07/14 14:03:13 ptr>
+
+PRGNAME = stterm-test
+SRC_CC = stterm-test.cc

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/StTerm-order/stterm-test.cc

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+/*
+ * The conversation with Matti Rintala on STLport forum 2005-08-24:
+ *
+ * Do you mean ISO/IEC 14882 3.6.3 [basic.start.term]?
+ *
+ * Yes. "Destructors (12.4) for initialized objects of static storage duration
+ * (declared at block scope or at namespace scope) are called as a result
+ * of returning from main and as a result of calling exit (18.3). These objects
+ * are destroyed in the reverse order of the completion of their constructor
+ * or of the completion of their dynamic initialization."
+ *
+ * I found a confirmation on the web that gcc may not strictly conform
+ * to this behaviour in certains cases unless -fuse-cxa-atexit is used.
+ *
+ * Test below give (without -fuse-cxa-atexit)
+
+Init::Init()
+Init::use_it
+It ctor done    <-- 0
+Init::use_it done
+Init ctor done  <-- 1
+Init2 ctor done <-- 2
+It dtor done    <-- 0
+Init2 dtor done <-- 2
+Init dtor done  <-- 1
+
+
+ * but should:
+
+Init::Init()
+Init::use_it
+It ctor done    <-- 0
+Init::use_it done
+Init ctor done  <-- 1
+Init2 ctor done <-- 2
+Init2 dtor done <-- 2
+Init dtor done  <-- 1
+It dtor done    <-- 0
+
+
+ */
+#include <stdio.h>
+
+using namespace std;
+
+class Init
+{
+  public:
+    Init();
+    ~Init();
+
+    static void use_it();
+};
+
+class Init2
+{
+  public:
+    Init2();
+    ~Init2();
+
+};
+
+static Init init;
+static Init2 init2;
+
+class It
+{
+  public:
+    It();
+    ~It();
+};
+
+Init::Init()
+{
+  printf( "Init::Init()\n" );
+  use_it();
+  printf( "Init ctor done\n" );
+}
+
+Init::~Init()
+{
+  printf( "Init dtor done\n" );
+}
+
+void Init::use_it()
+{
+  printf( "Init::use_it\n" );
+
+  static It it;
+
+  printf( "Init::use_it done\n" );
+}
+
+Init2::Init2()
+{
+  printf( "Init2 ctor done\n" );
+}
+
+Init2::~Init2()
+{
+  printf( "Init2 dtor done\n" );
+}
+
+It::It()
+{
+  printf( "It ctor done\n" );
+}
+
+It::~It()
+{
+  printf( "It dtor done\n" );
+}
+
+int main()
+{
+  return 0;
+}

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/eh.cc

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+#include <list> /* required, to expose allocator */
+#include <stdexcept>
+#include <stdio.h>
+
+using namespace std;
+
+struct BigStruct
+{
+  char _data[4096];
+};
+
+void bad_alloc_test()
+{
+  typedef allocator<BigStruct> BigStructAllocType;
+  BigStructAllocType bigStructAlloc;
+
+  try {
+    //Lets try to allocate almost 4096 Go (on most of the platforms) of memory:
+    BigStructAllocType::pointer pbigStruct = bigStructAlloc.allocate(1024 * 1024 * 1024);
+
+    // CPPUNIT_ASSERT( pbigStruct != 0 && "Allocation failed but no exception thrown" );
+  }
+  catch (bad_alloc const&) {
+    printf( "Ok\n" );
+  }
+  catch (...) {
+    //We shouldn't be there:
+    // CPPUNIT_ASSERT( false && "Not bad_alloc exception thrown." );
+  }
+}
+
+void bad_alloc_test1()
+{
+  try {
+    allocator<BigStruct> all;
+    BigStruct *bs = all.allocate(1024*1024*1024);
+
+    // throw bad_alloc();
+  }
+  catch ( bad_alloc const & ) {
+    printf( "I am here\n" );
+  }
+  catch ( ... ) {
+  }
+}
+
+int main()
+{
+  bad_alloc_test();
+#if 0
+  try {
+    throw bad_alloc();
+  }
+  catch ( bad_alloc& ) {
+  }
+  catch ( ... ) {
+  }
+#endif
+  return 0;
+}

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/gcc.mak

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+# -*- Makefile -*- Time-stamp: <04/03/14 23:50:57 ptr>
+
+SRCROOT := ../../build
+COMPILER_NAME := gcc
+
+ALL_TAGS := compile-only
+STLPORT_DIR := ../..
+include Makefile.inc
+include ${SRCROOT}/Makefiles/top.mak
+
+compile-only:	$(OUTPUT_DIRS) $(OBJ)
+

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/movable.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+#include <list>
+#include <vector>
+#include <string>
+
+using namespace std;
+
+struct S :
+    public string
+{
+};
+
+void test()
+{
+  list<S> l;
+  l.push_back( S() );
+
+  vector<S> v;
+  v.push_back( S() );
+}
+

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/partial_spec.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+/*
+ * It is known that this code not compiled by following compilers:
+ *
+ *   MSVC 6
+ *
+ * It is known that this code compiled by following compilers:
+ *
+ *   MSVC 8
+ *   gcc 4.1.1
+ */
+
+/*
+ * This code represent what STLport waits from a compiler which support
+ * the partial template function ordering (!_STLP_NO_FUNCTION_TMPL_PARTIAL_ORDER)
+ */
+
+template <class T1>
+struct template_struct {};
+
+template <class T1>
+int func(T1 p1);
+
+template <class T1>
+int func(template_struct<T1>);
+
+
+int foo()
+{
+  int tmp1 = 0;
+  template_struct<int> tmp2;
+  func(tmp1);
+  func(tmp2);
+  return 0;
+}

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/ttei1.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+/*
+ * It is known that this code not compiled by following compilers:
+ *   gcc 2.95.3
+ *   MSVC 6
+ *
+ * It is known that this code compiled by following compilers:
+ *   gcc 3.3.3
+ *   gcc 3.4.1
+ *   MSVC 8 Beta
+ */
+
+struct A
+{
+  private:
+    struct B
+    {
+        template <typename T>
+        static void f( T& ) {}
+
+        template <bool V>
+        struct C
+        {
+            template <typename T>
+            static void f( T& ) {}
+        };
+    };
+};
+
+template <> template <typename T>
+void A::B::C<true>::f( T& ) {}
+

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/ttei2.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+/*
+ * It is known that this code not compiled by following compilers:
+ *
+ * It is known that this code compiled by following compilers:
+ *   gcc 2.95.3
+ *   gcc 3.3.3
+ *   gcc 3.4.1
+ *   MSVC 6
+ *   MSVC 8
+ */
+
+struct A
+{
+  private:
+    struct B
+    {
+        template <typename T>
+        static void f( T& ) {}
+
+        template <bool V>
+        struct C
+        {
+        };
+    };
+};
+
+template <>
+struct A::B::C<true>
+{
+};
+

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/ttei3.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+/*
+ * It is known that this code not compiled by following compilers:
+ *   gcc 2.95.3
+ *   gcc 3.3.3
+ *   gcc 3.4.1
+ *   gcc 4.1.1
+ *
+ * It is known that this code compiled by following compilers:
+ *
+ *   MSVC 6
+ *   MSVC 8 Beta
+ */
+
+/*
+ * Indeed this code is wrong: explicit template specialization
+ * have to appear out-of-class.
+ *
+ */
+
+struct A
+{
+  private:
+    struct B
+    {
+        template <typename T>
+        static void f( T& ) {}
+
+        template <bool V>
+        struct C
+        {
+            template <typename T>
+            static void f( T& ) {}
+        };
+
+        template <>
+        struct C<true>
+        {
+            template <typename T>
+            static void f( T& ) {}
+        };
+    };
+};
+

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/ttei4.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+/*
+ * It is known that this code not compiled by following compilers:
+ *   gcc 2.95.3
+ *   gcc 3.3.3
+ *   gcc 3.4.1
+ *   gcc 4.1.1
+ *
+ * It is known that this code compiled by following compilers:
+ *
+ *   MSVC 6
+ *   MSVC 8 Beta
+ */
+
+/*
+ * Indeed this code is wrong: 1. explicit template specialization
+ * have to appear out-of-class; 2. specialized struct C have to
+ * have function f.
+ *
+ */
+
+struct A
+{
+  private:
+    struct B
+    {
+        template <typename T>
+        static void f( T& ) {}
+
+        template <bool V>
+        struct C
+        {
+            template <typename T>
+            static void f( T& ) {}
+        };
+
+        template <>
+        struct C<true>
+        {
+        };
+    };
+};
+

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/ttei5.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+/*
+ * It is known that this code not compiled by following compilers:
+ *   gcc 3.4.1
+ *   gcc 4.1.1
+ *
+ * It is known that this code compiled by following compilers:
+ *   gcc 2.95.3
+ *   gcc 3.3.3
+ *
+ *   MSVC 6
+ *   MSVC 8 Beta
+ */
+
+/*
+ * Indeed this code is wrong: explicit template specialization
+ * have to appear out-of-class.
+ *
+ */
+
+struct A
+{
+  private:
+    struct B
+    {
+        template <typename T>
+        static void f( T& ) {}
+
+        template <bool V>
+        struct C
+        {
+            template <typename T>
+            static void f( T& ) {}
+        };
+
+        template <>
+        struct C<true>
+        {
+            template <typename T>
+            static void f( T& ) {}
+        };
+    };
+};
+

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/ttei6.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+/*
+ * It is known that this code not compiled by following compilers:
+ *
+ * It is known that this code compiled by following compilers:
+ *
+ *   MSVC 6
+ *   MSVC 8 Beta
+ */
+
+/*
+ * This code represent what STLport waits from a compiler which support
+ * member template classes (!_STLP_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_CLASSES)
+ */
+
+template <typename T1>
+struct A
+{
+  template <typename T2>
+  struct B
+  {
+    typedef T2 _Type;
+  };
+};
+
+
+template <typename T1, typename T2>
+struct C
+{
+  typedef typename A<T1>:: template B<T2>::_Type ABType;
+};

extern/STLport/5.2.1/test/compiler/ttei7.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+/*
+ * It is known that this code not compiled by following compilers:
+ *
+ *   MSVC 6
+ *
+ * It is known that this code compiled by following compilers:
+ *
+ *   MSVC 8 Beta
+ */
+
+/*
+ * This code represent what STLport waits from a compiler which support
+ * the rebind member template class technique (!_STLP_DONT_SUPPORT_REBIND_MEMBER_TEMPLATE)
+ */
+
+template <typename T1>
+struct A
+{
+  template <typename T2>
+  struct B
+  {
+    typedef A<T2> _Type;
+  };
+};
+
+
+template <typename T, typename A>
+struct C
+{
+  typedef typename A:: template B<T>::_Type _ATType;
+};