[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

[Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-commits]

rmaprath added a comment.

On the other hand, disabling `` would mean disabling some parts of 
the library as well (in this case, `std::promise::set_exception`). Perhaps 
that's a bad path to follow. Not sure.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

[Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-commits]

rmaprath added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458#594069, @EricWF wrote:

> There are cases where it is useful to be able to name `std::nested_exception` 
> while exceptions are disabled.


I was thinking about the opposite. That is, we might want to consider disabling 
the `` header altogether when compiling with `-fno-exceptions`.  My 
particular use case is to do with futures:

  void make_hello(std::promise &p, bool set_exception) {
if (set_exception)
  p.set_exception(std::make_exception_ptr(
   std::runtime_error {"No hellos left."}));
else
  p.set_value("Hello world!");
  }

This will compile fine with `-fno-exceptions` and when the client thread 
attempts to read from the promise, whole program would crash. May be they 
deserve it, but I feel like it's something we can help with; if we disable the 
`` header, this code wouldn't compile under `-fno-exceptions`.

In what cases do we need to allow various exception types under 
`-fno-exceptions`?

Cheers,

/ Asiri


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

[Roger Ferrer Ibanez via cfe-commits]

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL286813: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions 
(authored by rogfer01).

Changed prior to commit:
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458?vs=77363&id=77782#toc

Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458

Files:
  
libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/assign.pass.cpp
  
libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_copy.pass.cpp
  
libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_default.pass.cpp

Index: libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/assign.pass.cpp
===
--- libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/assign.pass.cpp
+++ libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/assign.pass.cpp
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
 //
 //===--===//
 
-// XFAIL: libcpp-no-exceptions
 // 
 
 // class nested_exception;
@@ -17,6 +16,8 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 
+#include "test_macros.h"
+
 class A
 {
 int data_;
@@ -34,6 +35,7 @@
 e = e0;
 assert(e.nested_ptr() == nullptr);
 }
+#ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_EXCEPTIONS
 {
 try
 {
@@ -57,4 +59,5 @@
 }
 }
 }
+#endif
 }
Index: libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_copy.pass.cpp
===
--- libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_copy.pass.cpp
+++ libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_copy.pass.cpp
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
 //
 //===--===//
 
-// XFAIL: libcpp-no-exceptions
 // 
 
 // class nested_exception;
@@ -17,6 +16,8 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 
+#include "test_macros.h"
+
 class A
 {
 int data_;
@@ -33,6 +34,7 @@
 std::nested_exception e = e0;
 assert(e.nested_ptr() == nullptr);
 }
+#ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_EXCEPTIONS
 {
 try
 {
@@ -55,4 +57,5 @@
 }
 }
 }
+#endif
 }
Index: libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_default.pass.cpp
===
--- libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_default.pass.cpp
+++ libcxx/trunk/test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_default.pass.cpp
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
 //
 //===--===//
 
-// XFAIL: libcpp-no-exceptions
 // 
 
 // class nested_exception;
@@ -17,6 +16,8 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 
+#include "test_macros.h"
+
 class A
 {
 int data_;
@@ -32,6 +33,7 @@
 std::nested_exception e;
 assert(e.nested_ptr() == nullptr);
 }
+#ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_EXCEPTIONS
 {
 try
 {
@@ -53,4 +55,5 @@
 }
 }
 }
+#endif
 }
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

[Eric Fiselier via cfe-commits]

EricWF accepted this revision.
EricWF added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458#590865, @rmaprath wrote:

> Not sure if either of these tests add much value to the no-exceptions 
> variant, using `std::nested_exception` with such a library seem pointless to 
> me. Perhaps marking these as `UNSUPPORTED` is a better fix?


There are cases where it is useful to be able to name `std::nested_exception` 
while exceptions are disabled. I agree with @rogfer01 on this patch.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

[Roger Ferrer Ibanez via cfe-commits]

rogfer01 added a comment.

@rmaprath well each case is testing a different special member: the assignment 
operator, the copy constructor and the default constructor. My feeling is that 
at least the non-throwing part must be tested under no-exceptions. But I 
understand, that this class is probably useless in the context of no-exceptions.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

[Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-commits]

rmaprath added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458#590865, @rmaprath wrote:

> Not sure if either of these tests add much value to the no-exceptions 
> variant, using `std::nested_exception` with such a library seem pointless to 
> me. Perhaps marking these as `UNSUPPORTED` is a better fix?


Also, it seems like we are saving the same assert in all the three tests. If we 
want to save it that badly, perhaps creating a new test case with a `REQUIRES: 
libcpp-no-exceptions` is a better  fix.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

[Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-commits]

rmaprath added a comment.

Not sure if either of these tests add much value to the no-exceptions variant, 
using `std::nested_exception` with such a library seem pointless to me. Perhaps 
marking these as `UNSUPPORTED` is a better fix?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D26458: Protect nested-exceptions tests under no-exceptions

[Roger Ferrer Ibanez via cfe-commits]

rogfer01 created this revision.
rogfer01 added reviewers: mclow.lists, EricWF, rmaprath.
rogfer01 added a subscriber: cfe-commits.

Skip tests that expect an exception be thrown.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D26458

Files:
  test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/assign.pass.cpp
  test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_copy.pass.cpp
  
test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_default.pass.cpp

Index: test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_default.pass.cpp
===
--- test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_default.pass.cpp
+++ test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_default.pass.cpp
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
 //
 //===--===//
 
-// XFAIL: libcpp-no-exceptions
 // 
 
 // class nested_exception;
@@ -17,6 +16,8 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 
+#include "test_macros.h"
+
 class A
 {
 int data_;
@@ -32,6 +33,7 @@
 std::nested_exception e;
 assert(e.nested_ptr() == nullptr);
 }
+#ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_EXCEPTIONS
 {
 try
 {
@@ -53,4 +55,5 @@
 }
 }
 }
+#endif
 }
Index: test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_copy.pass.cpp
===
--- test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_copy.pass.cpp
+++ test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/ctor_copy.pass.cpp
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
 //
 //===--===//
 
-// XFAIL: libcpp-no-exceptions
 // 
 
 // class nested_exception;
@@ -17,6 +16,8 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 
+#include "test_macros.h"
+
 class A
 {
 int data_;
@@ -33,6 +34,7 @@
 std::nested_exception e = e0;
 assert(e.nested_ptr() == nullptr);
 }
+#ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_EXCEPTIONS
 {
 try
 {
@@ -55,4 +57,5 @@
 }
 }
 }
+#endif
 }
Index: test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/assign.pass.cpp
===
--- test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/assign.pass.cpp
+++ test/std/language.support/support.exception/except.nested/assign.pass.cpp
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
 //
 //===--===//
 
-// XFAIL: libcpp-no-exceptions
 // 
 
 // class nested_exception;
@@ -17,6 +16,8 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 
+#include "test_macros.h"
+
 class A
 {
 int data_;
@@ -34,6 +35,7 @@
 e = e0;
 assert(e.nested_ptr() == nullptr);
 }
+#ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_EXCEPTIONS
 {
 try
 {
@@ -57,4 +59,5 @@
 }
 }
 }
+#endif
 }
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits