On 14/08/19 10:39 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 12:02 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/08/19 16:07 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/13/19 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > * g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-6.C: Don't check
> > make_unique in
> > test that runs for C++11.
>
> I'm not comfortable removing this test coverage entirely. Doesn't
> it
> give a useful diagnostic in C++11 mode as well?
It does:
mu.cc:3:15: error: 'make_unique' is not a member of 'std'
3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>();
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
mu.cc:3:15: note: 'std::make_unique' is only available from C++14
onwards
mu.cc:3:27: error: expected primary-expression before 'int'
3 | auto p = std::make_unique<int>();
| ^~~
So we can add it to g++.dg/lookup/missing-std-include-8.C instead,
which runs for c++98_only and checks for the "is only available for"
cases. Here's a patch doing that.
FWIW this eliminates the testing that when we do have C++14 onwards,
that including <memory> is suggested.
Do we really care?
Are we testing that *every* entry in the array gives the right answer
for both missing-header and bad-std-option, or are we just testing a
subset of them to be sure the logic works as expected?
Because if we're testing every entry then:
1) we're missing LOTS of tests, and
2) we're just as likely to test the wrong thing and not actually catch
bugs (as was already happening for both make_unique and
complex_literals).
Maybe we need a C++14-onwards missing-std-include-* test, and to move
the existing test there? (and to add the new test for before-C++-14)
We could, but is it worth it?
