This looks OK to me.
Ugly, but OK.[[ URL | name ]]
================
Comment at:
test/depr/exception.unexpected/set.unexpected/get_unexpected.pass.cpp:32
@@ -28,3 +31,3 @@
// verify there is a previous unexpected handler
assert(old);
std::set_unexpected(f1);
----------------
K-ballo wrote:
> This assertion does not hold for MSVCRT, as a null handler represents the
> default behavior. Would it be better to make this check conditionally instead
> of marking the whole test as failed?
I believe that this check is incorrect.
Section D.8.3 says of `get_unexpected`:
//Returns//: The current unexpected_handler. [ //Note//: This may be a null
pointer value. — //end note //]
================
Comment at:
test/depr/exception.unexpected/set.unexpected/get_unexpected.pass.cpp:40
@@ -36,3 +39,3 @@
std::set_terminate(f3);
(*old)();
assert(0);
----------------
K-ballo wrote:
> This does not hold for MSVCRT either. Assuming the previous assertion is
> skipped for it, this could be tested by setting the unexpected handler to its
> original value and calling `unexpected()`.
Yes, I think that's better.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D5131
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
