rogfer01 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/std/strings/basic.string/string.access/at.pass.cpp:41
+ const S& cs = s;
+ if (pos < cs.size())
+ {
----------------
rmaprath wrote:
> For the cases where an exception //should've been// thrown, are we not
> entering the **undefined** domain at this point?
>
> What if instead, we define two versions of the `test()` function? one
> containing the current code as-is, and the other only handles the cases where
> exceptions are not expected, and we modify the `main()` function below so
> that the correct `test()` case is invoked depending on the presence /
> absence of exceptions? It's a bit more cumbersome than the current setup, but
> I'm not totally happy about treading into the undefined domain (if my
> understanding above is correct).
If I understand this test correctly, it checks for the `at` member function.
While certainly binding a const reference might throw, here it is bound to a
lvalue of the same type so no temporary construction should happen.
The original test checks both `s.size()` and `cs.size()`. Given that `size` is
a const member function it probably does not matter given that `cs` and `s` are
aliased, but see comment below.
================
Comment at: test/std/strings/basic.string/string.access/at.pass.cpp:45
+ assert(cs.at(pos) == cs[pos]);
+ assert(pos < cs.size());
+ }
----------------
This is redundant, maybe I should change the if condition to be `if (pos <
s.size())`
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26136
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
