[libcxx] r216317 - Add return statement to a test class's assignment operator. Defect found by Coverity Scan.

[Justin Bogner]

Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> writes:
>> I don't think we should spend our time fixing warnings (coverity or
>> otherwise) is code that is supposed to produce compile
>> errors... seems a waste.
>
> I don't want to revive this thread, but I really want to address this.
>
> Its *more* important to fix problems in tests that are supposed to
> fail to compile than any other test.  Its super easy to have code fail
> to compile.  What we are trying to test is that it fails for the
> *right* reason.  Any other errors, such as the one in this patch,
> could cause the test to "pass" incorrectly.  What if this test was
> "passing" because of the missing return?

I suspect the right answer here is to rework the libc++ testing
infrastructure so that it actually checks *why* the test failed in some
way, rather than the current "Exit code 1? Great!" approach.

I guess this is tricky if we want to be able to test libc++ with
different compilers or avoid version locking it too tightly with clang,
though.

FWIW, I agree that it's important to make sure these tests are actually
testing what they say they are.