EricWF accepted this revision.
EricWF added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Have you tested this against GCC which has different noexcept semantics?
If so this LGTM minus possibly addressing the inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/libcxx/strings/iterators.exceptions.pass.cpp:55
// iterators in the libc++ test suite
+
static_assert(TEST_FOR_FALSE(!std::__libcpp_string_gets_noexcept_iterator<output_iterator
<char *> >::value), "");
----------------
I would prefer something like this if possible:
```
#ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_EXCEPTIONS
static const bool expect = false;
#else
static const bool expect = true;
#endif
static_assert(std::__libcpp_string_gets_noexcept_iterator<...>::value ==
expect);
```
(Also the double negation of `TEST_FOR_FALSE(!foo)` is weird)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27310
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
