Invalid macro names in tests

[François Dumont]

Ok, I see, I've adapted _Rb_tree the same way.

Just a small remark on this patch. As the new code is only used in C++11 
and later several std::__addressof could be std::addressof, no ?

François

On 11/12/2024 20:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 at 18:47, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 at 18:32, François Dumont <frs.dumont@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I don't know if you will come to the same conclusion but I think
>>> alloc_ptr_ignored.cc test cannot PASS, at best it could XFAIL.
>> It passes for me with the patch I'm testing, attached. The relevant
>> parts that were needed to make alloc_ptr_ignored.cc work are the
>> changes to _List_base::_M_destroy_node and list::_M_create_node.
> Ha, I made a last-minute change to us 'if constexpr' in _M_put_node
> and broke the test again.
>
> The version attached here makes alloc_ptr_ignored.cc PASS again.
>
>
>>> Unless when _GLIBCXX_USE_ALLOC_PTR_FOR_XXX is 0 you simply want to
>>> ignore the _Alloc template parameter entirely and fallback on
>>> std::allocator ?
>>>
>>> Otherwise you have problems with node_handle definition or with the
>>> result of CustomPointerAlloc::allocate that cannot be converted to a _Node*.
>> Then the container needs to be fixed :-)