This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Test for C++20 p0858 - ConstexprIterator requirements.


On 08/06/19 12:05 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 6/7/19 11:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/06/19 15:40 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 6/1/19 2:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/31/19 6:29 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01:24, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
<libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
Greetings,

Iterators for <array> and <string_view> are usabe in a constexpr context
since C++2017.

This just adds a compile test to make sure and check a box for C++20
p0858 - ConstexprIterator requirements.
Those tests don't use the iterators in a constexpr context. To do
that, maybe do those std::copy operations
in a constexpr function and then initialize a constexpr variable with
the result of a call to that function?
Thanks Ville,

I had completely forgotten to make these test functions constexpr - FIXED.
.but that doesn't enforce a constexpr context. If you add another
function that calls these functions
and initializes a constexpr variable, then we have the enforcement I
seek. Such as

void test2()
{
?????? constexpr char x = test();
}

Ok, third time's a charm.

I was brain dead about the constexpr patch.?? I'm now setting a constexpr variable from test() in a caller.

But static_assert is a constexpr context no?

Ed



2019-06-03?? Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd@verizon.net>

????????Test for C++20 p0858 - ConstexprIterator requirements.
????????* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc:
????????New test.
????????* testsuite/23_containers/array/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc:
????????New test.


Index: testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc
===================================================================
--- testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc (nonexistent) +++ testsuite/21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_iter.cc (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+// { dg-do compile { target c++2a } }

Please check the testsuite/libstdc++.log or testsuite/libstdc++.sum
files for the new tests. I expect they are both UNSUPPORTED.

That's because you've given a target c++2a which means they won't be
run unless a suitable -std option is given. And you haven't given one.

You need to add { dg-options "-std=gnu++2a" } before the dg-do line.

Also if the tests are restricted to C++2a then there's no point having
the #if __cplusplus > 201703L check, because that will never be false.

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.

Also, we could declare victory for this for gcc-9.?? May I backport after this is in?

Yes, these tests are also OK to backport to gcc-9-branch (assuming
they pass on the branch, which I agree they should do).

Thanks!



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]