mclow.lists accepted this revision.
mclow.lists added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Landed as r292986
https://reviews.llvm.org/D20660
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin
mclow.lists updated this revision to Diff 84593.
mclow.lists added a comment.
Updated the macro name.
Use REQUIRES-ALL
Found a couple more tests that needed to be updated.
Fixed the libcxx/test bit.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D20660
Files:
include/memory
test/libcxx/depr/depr.auto.ptr/auto.pt
mclow.lists added a comment.
> there's probably a better way to state `_LIBCPP_STD_VER <= 14 ||
> defined(_LIBCPP_NO_REMOVE_AUTO_PTR)`.
There probably is; but remember, we want to make it so someone can
`-D_LIBCPP_NO_REMOVE_AUTO_PTR` on the command-line and get this back.
> I would love to hav
EricWF added inline comments.
Comment at: include/memory:1962
+#if _LIBCPP_STD_VER <= 14 || defined(_LIBCPP_NO_REMOVE_AUTOPTR)
template
I would love to have a semi-consistent naming scheme for macros which re-enable
removed C++17 features. Maybe `_LIBCPP_ENA
EricWF added a comment.
REQUIRES-ANY landed in r271468.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20660
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
EricWF added a comment.
FYI I have a LIT change out for review that adds "// REQUIRES-ANY: [...]" which
would be subtle for use in this patch.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20757
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20660
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@l
> As for tests - XFAILing seems a bit general when there's really not much
value in running any of the tests anyway. REQUIRES, perhaps?
Unfortunately REQUIRES is a conjunction so the obvious "// REQUIRES: c++98,
c++03, c++11, c++14" won't work.
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:32 AM, David Blaikie wro
ah, indeed :/
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Eric Fiselier wrote:
> > As for tests - XFAILing seems a bit general when there's really not
> much value in running any of the tests anyway. REQUIRES, perhaps?
>
> Unfortunately REQUIRES is a conjunction so the obvious "// REQUIRES:
> c++98, c++03
NO_REMOVE seems like a strange way of saying it - is there existing
precedent for that naming/description? (rather than something like
_LIBCPP_PROVIDE_AUTOPTR ?
As for tests - XFAILing seems a bit general when there's really not much
value in running any of the tests anyway. REQUIRES, perhaps? (th
EricWF added a comment.
A couple of comments.
1. there's probably a better way to state `_LIBCPP_STD_VER <= 14 ||
defined(_LIBCPP_NO_REMOVE_AUTO_PTR)`. Maybe `_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_AUTO_PTR` which
`__config` defines if `_LIBCPP_STD_VER > 14 &&
!defined(_LIBCPP_NO_REMOVE_AUTO_PTR)`.
2. `// XFAIL c++1
mclow.lists created this revision.
mclow.lists added a reviewer: EricWF.
mclow.lists added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
[[ http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4190 | N4190 ]]
removed `auto_ptr` from C++1z. (and other stuff)
Wrap all the auto_ptr bits in an #ifdef so they disap
11 matches
Mail list logo
