CaseyCarter marked an inline comment as done.
CaseyCarter added a comment.
> Do these tests pass with the current `<any>` implementation, or will they
> have to wait?
These tests **do not pass** without making the changes required in P0504R0 to
`<utility>` and `<any>`. (Interestingly <optional> is unaffected; its use of
`in_place_t` and `in_place` is source-compatible despite the changed
definitions of those names.) I would have made those changes as well, but my
request for permission to contribute changes to non-test code hasn't yet
returned from the void into which I cast it. If neither of you get around to
it, I may put an hour into it over the weekend.
================
Comment at: test/std/utilities/utility/utility.inplace/inplace.pass.cpp:40
-template <class Tp>
-struct CheckRet : std::false_type {};
-template <class Arg>
-struct CheckRet<std::in_place_tag(Arg)> : std::true_type {};
+#define STATIC_ASSERT(...) static_assert((__VA_ARGS__), #__VA_ARGS__)
----------------
mclow.lists wrote:
> Please just use `static_assert(x)` instead. Since this is C++1z only, you
> don't need to supply a message. If the test fails, the compiler will give you
> file and line #.
>
> If I see an all caps `STATIC_ASSERT`, then my first bit of research has to be
> "how is this different from `static_assert`?"
>
`static_assert(false);` in Visual C++ diagnoses with the incredibly informative:
> inplace.pass.cpp(59): error C2607: static assertion failed
so I've developed this habit which inadvertently leaked into the diff. Fixing.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26782
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
