================
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++98 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes
CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes
CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++14 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes
CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++17 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes
CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes
CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++23 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes
CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++2c %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes
CHECK
+
+namespace cwg6 { // cwg6: yes
----------------
zygoloid wrote:
I don't think we should mark this 3.1 just because part of the test we're using
here happens to not work on Clang 3.0. We shouldn't be describing the versions
of Clang that accept the test (that's irrelevant to our users); we should
instead be describing the versions of Clang that implement the issue resolution.
(If it's important that the test passes on the same versions of Clang that we
report, then perhaps we could `#define static_assert` to use the array hack for
old versions of Clang instead of reporting imprecise versions in our status
table? But that seems like it should be a non-goal to me.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165633
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
