[PATCH] D47940: [SmallSet] Add some simple unit tests.

[Florian Hahn via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

fhahn added inline comments.


================
Comment at: unittests/ADT/SmallSetTest.cpp:34-35
+
+  EXPECT_EQ(0u, s1.count(99));
+  EXPECT_EQ(0u, s1.count(4));
+}
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> not sure these two cases are worth testing separately - even though 4 is technically a boundary value, the set was never passed the value 4 so it seems just as likely to be buggily present as 99 does? (similar feedback on similar testing in the other cases, I think)
Yep, I'll drop the 99 case here and at the other places, thanks!


https://reviews.llvm.org/D47940