> On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:26 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Marshall Clow <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On Jan 9, 2015, at 12:17 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Marshall Clow <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> On Jan 9, 2015, at 9:06 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Marshall Clow <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Author: marshall >>> Date: Wed Jan 7 14:31:06 2015 >>> New Revision: 225375 >>> >>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=225375&view=rev >>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=225375&view=rev> >>> Log: >>> In C++03, a bunch of the arithmetic/logical/comparison functors (such as >>> add/equal_to/logical_or) were defined as deriving from binary_funtion. That >>> restriction was removed in C++11, but the tests still check for this. >>> Change the test to look for the embedded types >>> first_argument/second_argument/result_type. No change to the library, just >>> more standards-compliant tests. Thanks to STL @ Microsoft for the >>> suggestion. >>> >>> Are there any tests around to ensure the C++03 behavior remains in C++03? >>> Or is that not worth worrying about/preserving/implementing? >> >> The tests will continue to pass if the functors are derived from >> binary_function (which is how libc++ implements them). >> >> Other than that, no. >> >> binary_function is an empty struct with three nested typedefs: >> >> template <class Arg1, class Arg2, class Result> >> struct binary_function >> { >> typedef Arg1 first_argument_type; >> typedef Arg2 second_argument_type; >> typedef Result result_type; >> }; >> >> The tests (now) check for the existence (and correctness) of >> first_argument_type, second_argument_type and result_type. >> >> Right, what I mean is that if/when the functors no longer derive from >> binary_function, the tests would continue passing - not catching a >> regression for C++03, yes? (libc++ would no longer be a conforming >> implementation of C++03?) > > Yes, but when C++03 and C++11 differ, libc++ has consistently chosen the > C++11 implementation. > > Do they differ here, or does 11 just offer more flexibility (is the C++03 > implementation a conforming C++11 implementation, or must the inheritance be > removed)
No, the C++03 implementation is a conforming C++11 implementation, _and_ the implementation in libc++ is unchanged. [ and is a conforming C++03 implementation ] The inheritance is still there in the code. However, this may change in the future, because the current draft of the C++17 standard actually *removes* unary_function and binary_function. Hrm. > In any case, I think maybe I'm being unclear: > > There's no test to ensure we don't regress the C++03 required behavior, now > that these tests have been generalized. It seems like that's a hole/should be > fixed? We could add C++03 specific tests, I suppose. — Marshall
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
