STL_MSFT marked 2 inline comments as done.
STL_MSFT added a comment.
What I'm doing is running libcxx's tests against MSVC's compiler and libraries.
I could aggressively suppress warnings (and indeed I'm doing that for the
noisiest, lowest-value warnings), but instead I'm building the tests with
/http://reviews.llvm.org/W4 (our highest supported level). It is indeed
somewhat annoying to make tests warning-free, although it does find real issues
occasionally (e.g. the broken assert that I reported first). The real value is
verifying that the headers are warning-free, which has the potential to catch
issues in the product code. This is possibly a difference in philosophy between
VC's STL and libc++, because I believe libc++ uses the "system header" behavior
to avoid all warnings from system headers.
================
Comment at: test/std/numerics/rand/rand.device/eval.pass.cpp:33
@@ -32,3 +32,3 @@
}
- catch (const std::system_error& e)
+ catch (const std::system_error&)
{
----------------
EricWF wrote:
> This looks OK, but I noticed that *technically* the spec only says the
> exception type is derived from `std::exception`.
>
> However if we can keep testing this exception without bothering anybody I say
> we do.
This one's problematic for MSVC for other reasons, but I have no issue with
system_error here, so I haven't changed it.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19625
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
