Subject: [Boost-commit] svn:boost r61625 - trunk/libs/config/test
From: nielsdekker_at_[hidden]
Date: 2010-04-27 15:09:04
Author: niels_dekker
Date: 2010-04-27 15:09:04 EDT (Tue, 27 Apr 2010)
New Revision: 61625
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/61625
Log:
Added more documentation to boost_no_complete_value_initialization test.
Text files modified:
trunk/libs/config/test/boost_no_com_value_init.ipp | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Modified: trunk/libs/config/test/boost_no_com_value_init.ipp
==============================================================================
--- trunk/libs/config/test/boost_no_com_value_init.ipp (original)
+++ trunk/libs/config/test/boost_no_com_value_init.ipp 2010-04-27 15:09:04 EDT (Tue, 27 Apr 2010)
@@ -8,10 +8,25 @@
// MACRO: BOOST_NO_COMPLETE_VALUE_INITIALIZATION
// TITLE: No complete value-initialization
// DESCRIPTION: The C++ compiler does not to have implemented value-initialization completely.
-// See also boost/libs/utility/value_init.htm#compiler_issues
+// See also boost/libs/utility/value_init.htm#compiler_issues
#include <iostream>
+// This test checks various forms of value-initialization:
+// - doing member initialization inside a constructor
+// - creating a temporary object by T()
+// - creating a heap object by doing new T()
+// It checks various DefaultConstructible types, including fundamental types,
+// enum, union, pointer types, array types, POD and non-POD class types. For
+// each type of object, a helper function is_value_initialized(const T&) tells
+// whether the object is value-initialized.
+//
+// Note: It appeared insufficient to just check a single POD and a single
+// non-POD class type, because some compilers correctly value-initialize some
+// POD and some non-POD objects, while failing to value-initialize others.
+//
+// The test returns the number of encountered value-initialization failures.
+
namespace boost_no_complete_value_initialization
{
enum enum_type { negative_number = -1, magic_number = 42 };
@@ -54,7 +69,7 @@
arg.p == 0;
}
-
+ // A POD struct derived from another POD struct.
struct derived_pod_struct: pod_struct
{
int derived_data;
@@ -88,6 +103,7 @@
}
+ // A struct, having a bit-field.
struct bit_field_struct
{
bool b : 1;
@@ -100,6 +116,7 @@
return arg.b == false && arg.c == '\0'&& arg.u == 0U;
}
+ // A struct, having a function pointer.
struct function_ptr_struct
{
function_ptr_type data;
@@ -110,6 +127,7 @@
return arg.data == 0;
}
+ // A struct, having a member function pointer.
struct member_function_ptr_struct
{
member_function_ptr_type data;
@@ -120,8 +138,8 @@
return arg.data == 0;
}
- // Equivalent to the struct TData from CodeGear bug report 51854,
- // "Value-initialization: POD struct should be zero-initialized",
+ // A struct, having an int. Equivalent to the struct TData, from CodeGear bug
+ // report 51854, "Value-initialization: POD struct should be zero-initialized",
// reported by me (Niels Dekker, LKEB) in 2007:
// http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=51854
struct int_struct
@@ -135,6 +153,7 @@
}
+ // A struct, having an int_struct.
struct int_struct_holder
{
int_struct data;
@@ -146,6 +165,7 @@
}
+ // A struct derived from int_struct.
struct derived_int_struct: int_struct
{
};
@@ -440,6 +460,8 @@
}
}
+// A macro that passed both the name and the value of the specified object to
+// the function above here.
#define FAILED_TO_VALUE_INITIALIZE(value) failed_to_value_initialized(value, #value)