On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 03:30, Jakob Hasse via Libstdc++ <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > two weeks ago I submitted the second version of the patch PR105387 for the > bug 105387. Now I added a pointer-to-member exception test just to make sure > that it doesn't break in case RTTI is enabled. The test is disabled if RTTI > is disabled. I didn't receive any feedback so far regarding the second > version of the patch. Is there any issue preventing acceptance?
Just a lack of time to review it properly. It's on my list. > > I ran the conformance tests on libstdc++v3 by running > make -j 18 check RUNTESTFLAGS=conformance.exp > > Results for the current version (only difference is the added > pointer-to-member test): > > Without RTTI before applying patch: > === libstdc++ Summary === > > # of expected passes 14560 > # of unexpected failures 5 > # of expected failures 95 > # of unsupported tests 702 > > Without RTTI after applying patch: > === libstdc++ Summary === > > # of expected passes 14562 > # of unexpected failures 5 > # of expected failures 95 > # of unsupported tests 703 > > With RTTI before applying patch: > === libstdc++ Summary === > > # of expected passes 14598 > # of unexpected failures 2 > # of expected failures 95 > # of unsupported tests 683 > > With RTTI after applying patch: > === libstdc++ Summary === > > # of expected passes 14602 > # of unexpected failures 2 > # of expected failures 95 > # of unsupported tests 683 > > Given that the pointer-to-member test is disabled when RTTI is disabled, the > results look logical to me. >
