mclow.lists added inline comments.
================ Comment at: libcxx/test/libcxx/memory/aligned_allocation_macro.pass.cpp:18 +// XFAIL: macosx10.8 +// XFAIL: macosx10.7 ---------------- These should probably be `UNSUPPORTED` as well. ================ Comment at: libcxx/test/std/language.support/support.dynamic/new.delete/new.delete.array/delete_align_val_t_replace.pass.cpp:15 // Older Clang versions do not support this // XFAIL: clang-3, apple-clang-7, apple-clang-8 ---------------- These should probably be `UNSUPPORTED` as well (though this is less important) ================ Comment at: libcxx/test/std/language.support/support.dynamic/new.delete/new.delete.array/new_size_align.fail.cpp:15 // UNSUPPORTED: c++98, c++03, c++11, c++14, c++17 // UNSUPPORTED: clang-3.3, clang-3.4, clang-3.5, clang-3.6, clang-3.7, clang-3.8 ---------------- ldionne wrote: > vsapsai wrote: > > In what cases are we supposed to run these tests? Such extensive collection > > of unsupported C++ standards looks suspicious and I guess that is the > > reason why I haven't seen test failures with older libc++ dylibs. > That's an excellent question. I would assume those should be enabled in C++17 > and above, I'm not sure why they're disabled. @mclow.lists was the one to > introduce those tests, perhaps he can shed light on why they were disabled in > C++17? IIRC, this call - `operator new(std::size_t, std::align_val_t);` was introduced for C++17, and `[[nodiscard]]` was added for C++20. this test is making sure that we get a warning when you call this and don't use the return value. It requires C++20 and above, hence the massive UNSUPPORTED list Repository: rCXX libc++ https://reviews.llvm.org/D50341 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
