rmaprath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458#590865, @rmaprath wrote:
> Not sure if either of these tests add much value to the no-exceptions > variant, using `std::nested_exception` with such a library seem pointless to > me. Perhaps marking these as `UNSUPPORTED` is a better fix? Also, it seems like we are saving the same assert in all the three tests. If we want to save it that badly, perhaps creating a new test case with a `REQUIRES: libcpp-no-exceptions` is a better fix. https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
