ldionne added a comment.
> When the insert(P&&) is called, it delegates to emplace, which only gets
> Cpp17EmplaceConstructible from the supplied parameters, not
> Cpp17EmplaceConstructible from add_const_t of the parameters. Thus, libcxx's
> test is asserting a condition the standard explicitly does not allow at this
> time. [...]
Agreed.
> Unfortunately with the tests fixed to assert the correct allocator::construct
> call, libc++ will fail these tests. I'm looking for guidance on how libc++
> maintainers would like to handle this.
Do you know *why* the tests are failing with libc++? I see this overload for
`insert` and it seems like it should be a better match?
template <class _Pp,
class = typename enable_if<is_constructible<value_type,
_Pp>::value>::type>
_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
pair<iterator, bool> insert(_Pp&& __p);
I think we should just fix libc++ to do the right thing (according to the
standard).
Separately, I'm not sure it's worth changing the Standard to ensure that the `T
const&` overload is selected -- I don't see a huge benefit here.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61364/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61364
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
