On 15/12/20 15:20 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/12/20 22:36 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 14/12/20 11:08 am, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 06:51 François Dumont via Libstdc++,
mailto:libstdc%2b...@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote:
On 13/12/20 11:17 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/12/20 22:36 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 14/12/20 11:08 am, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 06:51 François Dumont via Libstdc++,
mailto:libstdc%2b...@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote:
On 13/12/20 11:17 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13/12/20 15:52 +0100, François Dumont via
On 14/12/20 11:08 am, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 06:51 François Dumont via Libstdc++,
mailto:libstdc%2b...@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote:
On 13/12/20 11:17 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13/12/20 15:52 +0100, François Dumont via Libstdc++ wrote:
>> Some tests are XPASS b
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 06:51 François Dumont via Libstdc++, <
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> On 13/12/20 11:17 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 13/12/20 15:52 +0100, François Dumont via Libstdc++ wrote:
> >> Some tests are XPASS because array assertions have been disabled for
> >> a good reason i
On 13/12/20 11:17 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/12/20 15:52 +0100, François Dumont via Libstdc++ wrote:
Some tests are XPASS because array assertions have been disabled for
a good reason in C++11.
I wonder if the respective non-constexpr _GLIBCXX_ASSERTION checks
shouldn't target C++14 to
On 13/12/20 15:52 +0100, François Dumont via Libstdc++ wrote:
Some tests are XPASS because array assertions have been disabled for a
good reason in C++11.
I wonder if the respective non-constexpr _GLIBCXX_ASSERTION checks
shouldn't target C++14 too. At the moment they are failing as expected