On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 at 14:21, Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 20/12/2024 13:37, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > With this, I get seven PASS results for this test. > > Thank you; I was just thinking, would it be simpler to split the test in > two instead rather than making it more convoluted than necessary? Let me > know and I'll amend it, in either direction.
I did think about that, but I think it's OK in a single test. That will also run a tiny bit quicker, as we won't have two tests which are skipped for most targets, we'll just have one which is only skipped for C++17 down. And I don't expect this test to need to change in future, so it shouldn't get any more convoluted than it is now, and won't be a maintenance headache. So I think I'll just finish testing it like that, as one test, and push that.
