================
@@ -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:
> When it comes to conformance tests (which I assume DR tests are a part of), I
> don't agree that users care when we implemented the resolution (or tried to)
> — it might take several patches to get things right. Instead they care
> whether their Clang version behaves as described in the resolution.
I think we're in agreement here. By "the versions of Clang that implement the
issue resolution", I mean the ones that get it right, not merely the ones that
try to :)
> For the record, it doesn't seem to be an issue with static_assert, because
> applying array hack doesn't help: https://godbolt.org/z/EcY6hP97e. 2.9 works
> as expected, so it's really a quirk of 3.0 (one of many; versions prior to
> 3.3 had a lot of regressions in my experience).
It looks like what you're seeing is an issue with constant evaluation, which is
an artifact of how this issue is being tested, rather than suggesting that we
don't implement it. All versions of Clang follow the direction of CWG 6; we
have never implemented some magical copy elision for function parameters, and
it'd be misleading to suggest we have, just because Clang 3.0 had some other
bug in its constant evaluator. It might be that there's no way to observe that
through constant evaluation in Clang 3.0, but that doesn't mean we don't
implement the direction of the issue there.
I'd be happy to replace the "yes" with "2.7" here, given that's our proxy for
"forever", but I think "3.1" is wrong.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165633
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
