[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

2016-11-19 Thread Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-commits
rmaprath added a comment. On the other hand, disabling `` would mean disabling some parts of the library as well (in this case, `std::promise::set_exception`). Perhaps that's a bad path to follow. Not sure. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458 _

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

2016-11-19 Thread Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-commits
rmaprath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458#594069, @EricWF wrote: > There are cases where it is useful to be able to name `std::nested_exception` > while exceptions are disabled. I was thinking about the opposite. That is, we might want to consider disabling the `` header al

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

2016-11-14 Thread Roger Ferrer Ibanez via cfe-commits
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL286813: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions (authored by rogfer01). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458?vs=77363&id=77782#toc Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

2016-11-14 Thread Eric Fiselier via cfe-commits
EricWF accepted this revision. EricWF added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458#590865, @rmaprath wrote: > Not sure if either of these tests add much value to the no-exceptions > variant, using `std::nested_exception` with such a library

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

2016-11-10 Thread Roger Ferrer Ibanez via cfe-commits
rogfer01 added a comment. @rmaprath well each case is testing a different special member: the assignment operator, the copy constructor and the default constructor. My feeling is that at least the non-throwing part must be tested under no-exceptions. But I understand, that this class is probabl

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

2016-11-09 Thread Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-commits
rmaprath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458#590865, @rmaprath wrote: > Not sure if either of these tests add much value to the no-exceptions > variant, using `std::nested_exception` with such a library seem pointless to > me. Perhaps marking these as `UNSUPPORTED` is a better f

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

2016-11-09 Thread Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-commits
rmaprath added a comment. Not sure if either of these tests add much value to the no-exceptions variant, using `std::nested_exception` with such a library seem pointless to me. Perhaps marking these as `UNSUPPORTED` is a better fix? https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458 __

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

2016-11-09 Thread Roger Ferrer Ibanez via cfe-commits
rogfer01 created this revision. rogfer01 added reviewers: mclow.lists, EricWF, rmaprath. rogfer01 added a subscriber: cfe-commits. Skip tests that expect an exception be thrown. https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458 Files: test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/assign.pass.cpp