This patch addresses the following issues in the test suite:
1. Move "std::bad_array_length" test from std/ to libcxx/ test directory
since the feature is not a part of the standard.
2. Rename "futures.tas" test directory to "futures.task" since that is the
correct stable name.
3. Move tests for "packaged_task<T>::result_type" from std/ to libcxx/
test directory since the typedef is a libc++ extension.
llvm-svn: 271430
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
This patch does the following:
* Remove <__config> includes from some container tests.
* Guards uses of std::launch::any in async tests because it's an extension.
* Move "test/std/extensions" to "test/libcxx/extensions"
* Moves various non-standard tests including those in "sequences/vector",
"std/localization" and "utilities/meta".
llvm-svn: 267981
Fixes a small omission in libcxx that prevents libcxx being built when
-DLIBCXX_ENABLE_EXCEPTIONS=0 is specified.
This patch adds XFAILS to all those tests that are currently failing
on the new -fno-exceptions library variant. Follow-up patches will
update the tests (progressively) to cope with the new library variant.
Change-Id: I4b801bd8d8e4fe7193df9e55f39f1f393a8ba81a
llvm-svn: 252598
Summary:
This patch marks *most* tests for `std::promise`, `std::future` and `std::shared_future` as unsupported in C++03. These tests fail in C++03 mode because they attempt to copy a `std::future` even though it is a `MoveOnly` type. AFAIK the missing move-semantics in `std::future` is the only reason these tests fail but without move semantics these classes are useless. For example even though `std::promise::set_value` and `std::promise::set_exception(...)` work in C++03 `std::promise` is still useless because we cannot call `std::promise::get_future(...)`.
It might be possible to hack `std::move(...)` like we do for `std::unique_ptr` to make the move semantics work but I don't think it is worth the effort. Instead I think we should leave the `<future>` header as-is and mark the failing tests as `UNSUPPORTED`. I don't believe there are any users of `std::future` or `std::promise` in C++03 because they are so unusable. Therefore I am not concerned about losing test coverage and possibly breaking users. However because there are still parts of `<future>` that work in C++03 it would be wrong to `#ifdef` out the entire header.
@mclow.lists Should we take further steps to prevent the use of `std::promise`, `std::future` and `std::shared_future` in C++03?
Note: This patch also cleans up the tests and converts them to use `support/test_allocator.h` instead of a duplicate class in `test/std/futures/test_allocator.h`.
Reviewers: mclow.lists
Subscribers: vsk, mclow.lists, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12135
llvm-svn: 246271
std::packaged_task requires variadic templates and is #ifdef out in C++03.
This patch silences the tests in C++03. This patch also rewrites the .fail.cpp tests so that they use clang verify.
llvm-svn: 245413
Within the shared state methods do not unlock the lock guards manually. This
could cause a race condition where the shared state is destroyed before the
method is complete.
llvm-svn: 239577
Summary:
Hello Howard,
While running the libc++ tests on our ARM boards, we encounter sporadic failures of the two tests:
test/std/thread/futures/futures.shared_future/wait_until.pass.cpp
test/std/thread/futures/futures.unique_future/wait_until.pass.cpp
The worker thread might not finish yet when the main thread checks its result.
I filed the bug 21998 for this case: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21998
Would you be able to review this please?
Thank you.
Oleg
Reviewers: howard.hinnant, mclow.lists, danalbert, jroelofs, EricWF
Reviewed By: jroelofs, EricWF
Subscribers: EricWF, mclow.lists, aemerson, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6750
llvm-svn: 228783
Eric Fiselier