* [PATCH] Fix _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
@ 2020-12-13 14:52 François Dumont
2020-12-13 22:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: François Dumont @ 2020-12-13 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libstdc++, gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1002 bytes --]
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
but because of an Undefined Behavior no ?
The other test is failing because of some cleanup in headers which makes
<memory> include necessary.
libstdc++: Fix several _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back2_neg.cc: target
c++14 because assertion
for constexpr is disabled in C++11.
* testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front2_neg.cc: Likewise.
*
testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator2_neg.cc:
Likewise.
*
testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/multithreaded_swap.cc: Include <memory>
for shared_ptr.
Ok to commit ?
François
[-- Attachment #2: debug.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2217 bytes --]
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back2_neg.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back2_neg.cc
index b14a3ec8c04..0066c671c42 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back2_neg.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back2_neg.cc
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
//
// { dg-options "-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS" }
-// { dg-do run { target c++11 xfail *-*-* } }
+// { dg-do run { target c++14 xfail *-*-* } }
#include <array>
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front2_neg.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front2_neg.cc
index e099e6eb46b..a6118cfce3a 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front2_neg.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front2_neg.cc
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
//
// { dg-options "-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS" }
-// { dg-do run { target c++11 xfail *-*-* } }
+// { dg-do run { target c++14 xfail *-*-* } }
#include <array>
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator2_neg.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator2_neg.cc
index 4e93c8a7d68..efb28d715e9 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator2_neg.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator2_neg.cc
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
//
// { dg-options "-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS" }
-// { dg-do run { target c++11 xfail *-*-* } }
+// { dg-do run { target c++14 xfail *-*-* } }
#include <array>
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/multithreaded_swap.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/multithreaded_swap.cc
index 0d795147644..a0050ec764c 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/multithreaded_swap.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/multithreaded_swap.cc
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
// mode as it requires acquiring 2 locks at the same time.
#include <vector>
+#include <memory>
#include <thread>
#include <functional>
#include <testsuite_hooks.h>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
2020-12-13 14:52 [PATCH] Fix _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests François Dumont
@ 2020-12-13 22:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-12-14 6:50 ` François Dumont
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2020-12-13 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: François Dumont; +Cc: libstdc++, gcc-patches
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
>but because of an Undefined Behavior no ?
Hmm, maybe my "fix" for the bug was too hasty, and I should have done
this instead:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
@@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ namespace std
#undef _GLIBCXX_HAS_BUILTIN
-#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED
+#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED && __cplusplus >= 201402L
# define __glibcxx_assert_1(_Condition) \
if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated()) \
{ \
That would allow us to keep the std::array runtime assertions for
C++11, and only disable them in constexpr contexts.
>The other test is failing because of some cleanup in headers which
>makes <memory> include necessary.
>
>Â Â Â libstdc++: Fix several _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
>
>Â Â Â libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â * testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back2_neg.cc: target
>c++14 because assertion
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â for constexpr is disabled in C++11.
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â * testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front2_neg.cc: Likewise.
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
>testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator2_neg.cc:
>Likewise.
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
>testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/multithreaded_swap.cc: Include
><memory>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â for shared_ptr.
>
>Ok to commit ?
Yes, thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
2020-12-13 22:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2020-12-14 6:50 ` François Dumont
2020-12-14 10:08 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: François Dumont @ 2020-12-14 6:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: libstdc++, gcc-patches
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 too. At the moment they are failing as
>> expected but because of an Undefined Behavior no ?
>
> Hmm, maybe my "fix" for the bug was too hasty, and I should have done
> this instead:
>
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
> @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ namespace std
>
> #undef _GLIBCXX_HAS_BUILTIN
>
> -#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED
> +#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED && __cplusplus >=
> 201402L
> # define __glibcxx_assert_1(_Condition) \
> if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated()) \
> { \
>
> That would allow us to keep the std::array runtime assertions for
> C++11, and only disable them in constexpr contexts.
I already tried to restore this check in C++11 runtime without success
but I didn't try this approach.
I'll have a try but C++11 forces constexpr to be just a return statement
so I fear that it won't appreciate the additional assertion.
>
>
>> The other test is failing because of some cleanup in headers which
>> makes <memory> include necessary.
>>
>> Â Â Â libstdc++: Fix several _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
>>
>> Â Â Â libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>>
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
>> testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back2_neg.cc: target c++14
>> because assertion
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â for constexpr is disabled in C++11.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
>> testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front2_neg.cc: Likewise.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
>> testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator2_neg.cc:
>> Likewise.
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
>> testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/multithreaded_swap.cc: Include
>> <memory>
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â for shared_ptr.
>>
>> Ok to commit ?
>
> Yes, thanks.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
2020-12-14 6:50 ` François Dumont
@ 2020-12-14 10:08 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-12-14 21:36 ` François Dumont
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2020-12-14 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: François Dumont; +Cc: Jonathan Wakely, libstdc++, gcc-patches
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 06:51 François Dumont via Libstdc++, <
libstdc++@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 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 but because of an Undefined Behavior no ?
> >
> > Hmm, maybe my "fix" for the bug was too hasty, and I should have done
> > this instead:
> >
> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
> > @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ namespace std
> >
> > #undef _GLIBCXX_HAS_BUILTIN
> >
> > -#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED
> > +#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED && __cplusplus >=
> > 201402L
> > # define __glibcxx_assert_1(_Condition) \
> > if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated()) \
> > { \
> >
> > That would allow us to keep the std::array runtime assertions for
> > C++11, and only disable them in constexpr contexts.
>
> I already tried to restore this check in C++11 runtime without success
> but I didn't try this approach.
>
> I'll have a try but C++11 forces constexpr to be just a return statement
> so I fear that it won't appreciate the additional assertion.
>
Ah yes, we'd need something like Daniel suggested, and it's not worth it
just for C++11.
Just limiting the tests to c++14 is fine.
> >
> >
> >> The other test is failing because of some cleanup in headers which
> >> makes <memory> include necessary.
> >>
> >> Â Â Â libstdc++: Fix several _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
> >>
> >> Â Â Â libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
> >> testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back2_neg.cc: target c++14
> >> because assertion
> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â for constexpr is disabled in C++11.
> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
> >> testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front2_neg.cc: Likewise.
> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
> >> testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator2_neg.cc:
> >> Likewise.
> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
> >> testsuite/23_containers/vector/debug/multithreaded_swap.cc: Include
> >> <memory>
> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â for shared_ptr.
> >>
> >> Ok to commit ?
> >
> > Yes, thanks.
> >
> >
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
2020-12-14 10:08 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2020-12-14 21:36 ` François Dumont
2020-12-15 15:20 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: François Dumont @ 2020-12-14 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: Jonathan Wakely, libstdc++, gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1967 bytes --]
On 14/12/20 11:08 am, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 06:51 François Dumont via Libstdc++,
> <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org <mailto:libstdc%2B%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 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 but because of an Undefined Behavior no ?
> >
> > Hmm, maybe my "fix" for the bug was too hasty, and I should have
> done
> > this instead:
> >
> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
> > @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ namespace std
> >
> > #undef _GLIBCXX_HAS_BUILTIN
> >
> > -#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED
> > +#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED && __cplusplus >=
> > 201402L
> > # define __glibcxx_assert_1(_Condition) \
> > if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated()) \
> > { \
> >
> > That would allow us to keep the std::array runtime assertions for
> > C++11, and only disable them in constexpr contexts.
>
> I already tried to restore this check in C++11 runtime without
> success
> but I didn't try this approach.
>
> I'll have a try but C++11 forces constexpr to be just a return
> statement
> so I fear that it won't appreciate the additional assertion.
>
>
>
> Ah yes, we'd need something like Daniel suggested, and it's not worth
> it just for C++11.
>
> Just limiting the tests to c++14 is fine.
>
>
Attached patch committed then.
François
[-- Attachment #2: debug.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1675 bytes --]
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back1_neg.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back1_neg.cc
index 8216dea3cfb..ca3172e9e39 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back1_neg.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/back1_neg.cc
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
//
// { dg-options "-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS" }
-// { dg-do run { target c++11 xfail *-*-* } }
+// { dg-do run { target c++14 xfail *-*-* } }
#include <array>
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front1_neg.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front1_neg.cc
index c6871093d2a..0f102103fe5 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front1_neg.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/front1_neg.cc
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
//
// { dg-options "-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS" }
-// { dg-do run { target c++11 xfail *-*-* } }
+// { dg-do run { target c++14 xfail *-*-* } }
#include <array>
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator1_neg.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator1_neg.cc
index 3f1ea128902..130325620e8 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator1_neg.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/debug/square_brackets_operator1_neg.cc
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
//
// { dg-options "-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS" }
-// { dg-do run { target c++11 xfail *-*-* } }
+// { dg-do run { target c++14 xfail *-*-* } }
#include <array>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
2020-12-14 21:36 ` François Dumont
@ 2020-12-15 15:20 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-12-15 15:41 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2020-12-15 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: François Dumont; +Cc: libstdc++, gcc-patches
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++,
>><libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org <mailto:libstdc%2B%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 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 but because of an Undefined Behavior no ?
>> >
>> > Hmm, maybe my "fix" for the bug was too hasty, and I should have
>> done
>> > this instead:
>> >
>> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
>> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
>> > @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ namespace std
>> >
>> > #undef _GLIBCXX_HAS_BUILTIN
>> >
>> > -#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED
>> > +#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED && __cplusplus >=
>> > 201402L
>> > # define __glibcxx_assert_1(_Condition) \
>> > if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated()) \
>> > { \
>> >
>> > That would allow us to keep the std::array runtime assertions for
>> > C++11, and only disable them in constexpr contexts.
>>
>> I already tried to restore this check in C++11 runtime without
>> success
>> but I didn't try this approach.
>>
>> I'll have a try but C++11 forces constexpr to be just a return
>> statement
>> so I fear that it won't appreciate the additional assertion.
>>
>>
>>
>>Ah yes, we'd need something like Daniel suggested, and it's not
>>worth it just for C++11.
>>
>>Just limiting the tests to c++14 is fine.
>>
>>
>Attached patch committed then.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests
2020-12-15 15:20 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2020-12-15 15:41 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2020-12-15 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: François Dumont; +Cc: libstdc++, gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2313 bytes --]
On 15/12/20 15:20 +0000, 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++,
>>><libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org <mailto:libstdc%2B%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 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 but because of an Undefined Behavior no ?
>>> >
>>> > Hmm, maybe my "fix" for the bug was too hasty, and I should have
>>> done
>>> > this instead:
>>> >
>>> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
>>> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
>>> > @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ namespace std
>>> >
>>> > Â #undef _GLIBCXX_HAS_BUILTIN
>>> >
>>> > -#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED
>>> > +#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED && __cplusplus >=
>>> > 201402L
>>> > Â # define __glibcxx_assert_1(_Condition)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â \
>>> > Â Â Â Â if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated())Â Â Â Â \
>>> > Â Â Â Â Â {Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â \
>>> >
>>> > That would allow us to keep the std::array runtime assertions for
>>> > C++11, and only disable them in constexpr contexts.
>>>
>>> I already tried to restore this check in C++11 runtime without
>>> success
>>> but I didn't try this approach.
>>>
>>> I'll have a try but C++11 forces constexpr to be just a return
>>> statement
>>> so I fear that it won't appreciate the additional assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah yes, we'd need something like Daniel suggested, and it's not
>>>worth it just for C++11.
>>>
>>>Just limiting the tests to c++14 is fine.
>>>
>>>
>>Attached patch committed then.
>
>Thanks.
I'm committing this anyway, because although it won't fix those tests,
it is useless to check __builtin_is_constant_evaluated() in C++11
mode.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, normal mode and debug mode. Pushed to trunk.
[-- Attachment #2: patch.txt --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1022 bytes --]
commit f072d1021e3e80539afe58ba0019fafa9a0bb7a6
Author: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Date: Tue Dec 15 15:39:58 2020
libstdc++: Do not define constexpr assertions for C++11
There's no point even checking is_constant_evaluated() in C++11 mode,
because the 'if' statement used for the assertion wouldn't be valid in a
C++11 constexpr function anyway.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/c++config (__glibcxx_assert_1): Define as empty
for C++11.
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
index 27302ed392e..155d0f46b16 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config
@@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ namespace std
#undef _GLIBCXX_HAS_BUILTIN
-#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED
+#if _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED && __cplusplus >= 201402L
# define __glibcxx_assert_1(_Condition) \
if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated()) \
{ \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-12-15 15:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-12-13 14:52 [PATCH] Fix _GLIBCXX_DEBUG tests François Dumont
2020-12-13 22:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-12-14 6:50 ` François Dumont
2020-12-14 10:08 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-12-14 21:36 ` François Dumont
2020-12-15 15:20 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-12-15 15:41 ` Jonathan Wakely
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).