test/std/strings/string.classes/typedefs.pass.cpp
Actually test what basic_string's typedefs stand for.
test/std/utilities/meta/meta.trans/meta.trans.other/result_of11.pass.cpp
NotDerived and ND were completely unused.
test/std/utilities/utility/pairs/pairs.pair/default.pass.cpp
P2 was mistakenly not being used. Yes, that's
right: -Wunused-local-typedef CAUGHT A MISTAKE! AMAZING!
Fixes D29137.
llvm-svn: 294156
Pending LIT changes are about to remove the REQUIRES-ANY keyword
in place of supporting boolean && and || within "REQUIRES". This
patch prepares libc++ for that change so that when applied
the bots don't lose their mind.
llvm-svn: 292901
test/std/input.output/iostream.format/input.streams/istream.unformatted/get.pass.cpp
Add static_cast<char> because basic_istream::get() returns int_type (N4606 27.7.2.3 [istream.unformatted]/4).
test/std/input.output/iostream.format/output.streams/ostream.formatted/ostream.inserters.arithmetic/minus1.pass.cpp
Add static_cast<char> because toupper() returns int (C11 7.4.2.2/1).
test/std/iterators/stream.iterators/ostream.iterator/ostream.iterator.ops/assign_t.pass.cpp
This test is intentionally writing doubles to ostream_iterator<int>.
It's silencing -Wliteral-conversion for Clang, so I'm adding C4244 silencing for MSVC.
test/std/language.support/support.limits/limits/numeric.limits.members/infinity.pass.cpp
Given `extern float zero;`, the expression `1./zero` has type double, which emits a truncation warning
when being passed to test<float>() taking float. The fix is to say `1.f/zero` which has type float.
test/std/numerics/complex.number/cmplx.over/arg.pass.cpp
test/std/numerics/complex.number/cmplx.over/norm.pass.cpp
These tests were constructing std::complex<double>(x, 0), emitting truncation warnings when x is long long.
Saying static_cast<double>(x) avoids this.
test/std/numerics/rand/rand.eng/rand.eng.lcong/seed_result_type.pass.cpp
This was using `int s` to construct and seed a linear_congruential_engine<T, stuff>, where T is
unsigned short/unsigned int/unsigned long/unsigned long long. That emits a truncation warning in the
unsigned short case. Because the range [0, 20) is tiny and we aren't doing anything else with the index,
we can just iterate with `T s`.
test/std/re/re.traits/value.pass.cpp
regex_traits<wchar_t>::value()'s first parameter is wchar_t (N4606 28.7 [re.traits]/13). This loop is
using int to iterate through ['g', 0xFFFF), emitting a truncation warning from int to wchar_t
(which is 16-bit for some of us). Because the bound is exclusive, we can just iterate with wchar_t.
test/std/strings/basic.string/string.cons/size_char_alloc.pass.cpp
This test is a little strange. It's trying to verify that basic_string's (InIt, InIt) range constructor
isn't confused by "N copies of C" when N and C have the same integral type. To do this, it was
testing (100, 65), but that eventually emits truncation warnings from int to char. There's a simple way
to avoid this - passing (static_cast<char>(100), static_cast<char>(65)) also exercises the disambiguation.
(And 100 is representable even when char has a signed range.)
test/std/strings/string.view/string.view.hash/string_view.pass.cpp
Add static_cast<char_type> because `'0' + i` has type int.
test/std/utilities/function.objects/bind/func.bind/func.bind.bind/nested.pass.cpp
What's more horrible than nested bind()? pow() overloads! This operator()(T a, T b) was assuming that
std::pow(a, b) can be returned as T. (In this case, T is int.) However, N4606 26.9.1 [cmath.syn]/2
says that pow(int, int) returns double, so this was truncating double to int.
Adding static_cast<T> silences this.
test/std/utilities/function.objects/unord.hash/integral.pass.cpp
This was iterating `for (int i = 0; i <= 5; ++i)` and constructing `T t(i);` but that's truncating
when T is short. (And super truncating when T is bool.) Adding static_cast<T> silences this.
test/std/utilities/utility/exchange/exchange.pass.cpp
First, this was exchanging 67.2 into an int, but that's inherently truncating.
Changing this to static_cast<short>(67) avoids the truncation while preserving the
"what if T and U are different" test coverage.
Second, this was exchanging {} with the explicit type float into an int, and that's also
inherently truncating. Specifying short is just as good.
test/std/utilities/utility/pairs/pairs.spec/make_pair.pass.cpp
Add static_cast<short>. Note that this affects template argument deduction for make_pair(),
better fulfilling the test's intent. For example, this was saying
`typedef std::pair<int, short> P1; P1 p1 = std::make_pair(3, 4);` but that was asking
make_pair() to return pair<int, int>, which was then being converted to pair<int, short>.
(pair's converting constructors are tested elsewhere.)
Now, std::make_pair(3, static_cast<short>(4)) actually returns pair<int, short>.
(There's still a conversion from pair<nullptr_t, short> to pair<unique_ptr<int>, short>.)
Fixes D27544.
llvm-svn: 289111
This replaces every occurrence of _LIBCPP_STD_VER in the tests with
TEST_STD_VER. Additionally, for every affected
file, #include "test_macros.h" is being added explicitly if it wasn't
already there.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26294
llvm-svn: 286007
Summary:
On FreeBSD, for ABI compatibility reasons, the pair trivial copy
constructor is disabled, using the aptly-named
`_LIBCPP_DEPRECATED_ABI_DISABLE_PAIR_TRIVIAL_COPY_CTOR` define.
Disable the related tests when this define is on, so they don't fail
unexpectedly.
Reviewers: emaste, rsmith, theraven, EricWF
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25449
llvm-svn: 284047
Summary:
`std::move` and `std::forward` were not marked constexpr in C++11. This can be very damaging because it makes otherwise constant expressions non-constant. For example:
```
#include <utility>
template <class T>
struct Foo {
constexpr Foo(T&& tx) : t(std::move(tx)) {}
T t;
};
[[clang::require_constant_initialization]] Foo<int> f(42); // Foo should be constant initialized but C++11 move is not constexpr. As a result `f` is an unsafe global.
```
This patch applies `constexpr` to `move` and `forward` as an extension in C++11. Normally the library is not allowed to add `constexpr` because it may be observable to the user. In particular adding constexpr may cause valid code to stop compiling. However these problems only happen in more complex situations, like making `__invoke(...)` constexpr. `forward` and `move` are simply enough that applying `constexpr` is safe.
Note that libstdc++ has offered this extension since at least 4.8.1.
Most of the changes in this patch are simply test cleanups or additions. The main changes in the tests are:
* Fold all `forward_N.fail.cpp` tests into a single `forward.fail.cpp` test using -verify.
* Delete most `move_only_N.fail.cpp` tests because they weren't actually testing anything.
* Fold `move_copy.pass.cpp` and `move_only.pass.cpp` into a single `move.pass.cpp` test.
* Add return type and noexcept tests for `forward` and `move`.
Reviewers: rsmith, mclow.lists, EricWF
Subscribers: K-ballo, loladiro
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24637
llvm-svn: 282439
This assignment operator was previously broken since the SFINAE always resulted
in substitution failure. This caused assignments to turn into
copy construction + assignment.
This patch was originally committed as r279953 but was reverted due to warnings
in the test-suite. This new patch corrects those warnings.
llvm-svn: 279955
This assignment operator was previously broken since the SFINAE always resulted
in substitution failure. This caused assignments to turn into
copy construction + assignment.
llvm-svn: 279953
This is a breaking change. The SFINAE required is instantiated the second
the class is instantiated, and this can cause hard SFINAE errors
when applied to references to incomplete types. Ex.
struct IncompleteType;
extern IncompleteType it;
std::tuple<IncompleteType&> t(it); // SFINAE will blow up.
llvm-svn: 276598
In C++03 mode evaluating the SFINAE can cause a hard error due to
access control violations. This is a problem because the SFINAE
is evaluated as soon as the class is instantiated, and not later.
llvm-svn: 276594
Quite a few libcxx tests seem to follow the format:
#if _LIBCPP_STD_VER > X
// Do test.
#else
// Empty test.
#endif
We should instead use the UNSUPPORTED lit directive to exclude the test on
earlier C++ standards. This gives us a more accurate number of test passes
for those standards and avoids unnecessary conflicts with other lit
directives on the same tests.
Reviewers: bcraig, ericwf, mclow.lists
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20730
llvm-svn: 271108
Marshall Clow