EricWF added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/memory:1962 +#if _LIBCPP_STD_VER <= 14 || defined(_LIBCPP_NO_REMOVE_AUTOPTR) template <class _Tp> ---------------- I would love to have a semi-consistent naming scheme for macros which re-enable removed C++17 features. Maybe `_LIBCPP_ENABLE_REMOVED_CXX17_FOO`? I'l apply whatever naming scheme we decide on to the changes in D28172 ================ Comment at: include/memory:2019 }; +#endif ---------------- Comment on the `#endif`? ================ Comment at: test/libcxx/depr/depr.auto.ptr/auto.ptr/auto_ptr.cxx1z.pass.cpp:20 +#define _LIBCPP_NO_REMOVE_AUTOPTR + +#include <memory> ---------------- Please add `// MODULES_DEFINES: _LIBCPP_NO_REMOVE_AUTOPTR` ================ Comment at: test/std/depr/depr.auto.ptr/auto.ptr/auto.ptr.cons/assignment.pass.cpp:16 +// XFAIL: c++1z + ---------------- Please use `REQUIRES: c++98, c++03, c++11, c++14` instead of `XFAIL: c++1z` for two reasons: 1) The former is future proof to new standard dialects whereas the latter is not. 2) `XFAIL` should only be used on tests that fail due to a bug or missing compiler feature, not for tests which we expect to fail for well defined reasons. https://reviews.llvm.org/D20660 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
