to reflect the new license. These used slightly different spellings that
defeated my regular expressions.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351648
Various changes:
test/std/algorithms/alg.sorting/alg.merge/inplace_merge.pass.cpp
This is comparing value_type to unsigned. value_type is sometimes int and sometimes struct S (implicitly constructible from int).
static_cast<value_type>(unsigned) silences the warning and doesn't do anything bad (as the values in question are small).
test/std/algorithms/alg.sorting/alg.nth.element/nth_element_comp.pass.cpp
This is comparing an int remote-element to size_t. The values in question are small and non-negative,
so either type is fine. I think that converting int to size_t is marginally better here than the reverse.
test/std/containers/sequences/deque/deque.cons/size.pass.cpp
DefaultOnly::count is int (and non-negative). When comparing to unsigned, use static_cast<unsigned>.
test/std/strings/basic.string/string.access/index.pass.cpp
We're comparing char to '0' through '9', but formed with the type size_t. Add static_cast<char>.
test/std/utilities/template.bitset/bitset.cons/ull_ctor.pass.cpp
Include <cstddef> for pedantic correctness (this test was already mentioning std::size_t).
"v[i] == (i & 1)" was comparing bool to size_t. Saying "v[i] == ((i & 1) != 0)" smashes the RHS to bool.
llvm-svn: 288749
These tests are of the form
try {
action-that-may-throw
assert(!exceptional-condition)
assert(some-other-facts)
} catch (relevant-exception) {
assert(exceptional-condition)
}
Under libcpp-no-exceptions there is still value in verifying
some-other-facts while avoiding the exceptional case. So for these tests
just conditionally check some-other-facts if exceptional-condition is
false. When exception are supported make sure that a true
exceptional-condition throws an exception
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26136
llvm-svn: 285697
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
Chandler Carruth