On 6/9/19 6:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 10/06/19 00:03 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Ed,
I had supplied the option for gnu++2a by hand and they passed.?? They
were not UNSUPPORTED.
I just added the dg-options (at very top) and reran the testsuite
without fancy tricks (except for gnu++2a).
I also took out the #if __cplusplus.?? I was just playing around and
discovered that these pass in C++17 if you comment out the C++20
constexpr algos.
OK for trunk?
OK for trunk.
Committed 272084.
272085 actually ;-)?? Unfortunately, the new tests seem to FAIL (almost?)
everywhere:
+FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc
(test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc:33:
error: call to non-'constexpr' function '_OI std::copy(_II, _II, _OI)
[with _II = const char*; _OI = int*]'
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc:41:
error: 'constexpr char test()' called in a constant expression
+FAIL: 23_containers/array/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc (test for
excess errors)
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc:32:
error: call to non-'constexpr' function '_OI std::copy(_II, _II, _OI)
[with _II = const int*; _OI = int*]'
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/array/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc:40:
error: 'constexpr int test()' called in a constant expression
I'm seeing those on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, and
there are gcc-testresults reports on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu,
i686-pc-linux-gnu, powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, and
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, among others.
Presumably because std::copy isn't actually constexpr yet.
Ed, do you have uncommitted local changes that allow this test to
pass? Because I don't see how it can pass otherwise.
Darn it, I had those constexpr lib patches in tree.
Attached are what I just committed to gcc-9 and passes there. Those
std::copy didn't really add anything anyway.
Note to self - no matter how small work on a separate branch.
I'm testing on a new clean branch unless someone beats me to it.
Sorry for all the noise.
Ed
Index: testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc
===================================================================
--- testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc
(revision 272098)
+++ testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc
(working copy)
@@ -29,9 +29,6 @@
auto ch = hw[4];
static_assert('W' == *(hw.cbegin() + 7));
- std::array<int, hw.size()> a2{{0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0}};
- std::copy(hw.begin(), hw.end(), a2.begin());
-
return *(hw.cbegin() + 3);
}
Index: testsuite/23_containers/array/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc
===================================================================
--- testsuite/23_containers/array/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc
(revision 272098)
+++ testsuite/23_containers/array/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc
(working copy)
@@ -28,9 +28,6 @@
auto n = a1[0] * a1[1]* a1[2];
static_assert(1 == *a1.cbegin());
- std::array<int, 3> a2{{0, 0, 0}};
- std::copy(a1.begin(), a1.end(), a2.begin());
-
return n;
}
