[all-commits] [llvm/llvm-project] b47603: [libc++] Refactor the tests for ranges::{advance, n...

[Louis Dionne via All-commits]

  Branch: refs/heads/main
  Home:   https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
  Commit: b476039e8b90dd67da7928c64637ba363e7e8b8e
      https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b476039e8b90dd67da7928c64637ba363e7e8b8e
  Author: Louis Dionne <ldionne.2 at gmail.com>
  Date:   2022-01-13 (Thu, 13 Jan 2022)

  Changed paths:
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/range.iter.ops.advance/iterator_count.pass.cpp
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/range.iter.ops.advance/iterator_count_sentinel.pass.cpp
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/range.iter.ops.advance/iterator_sentinel.pass.cpp
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/range.iter.ops.next/iterator.pass.cpp
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/range.iter.ops.next/iterator_count.pass.cpp
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/range.iter.ops.next/iterator_count_sentinel.pass.cpp
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/range.iter.ops.next/iterator_sentinel.pass.cpp
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/range.iter.ops.prev/iterator.pass.cpp
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/range.iter.ops.prev/iterator_count.pass.cpp
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/range.iter.ops.prev/iterator_count_sentinel.pass.cpp
    M libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.primitives/range.iter.ops/types.h

  Log Message:
  -----------
  [libc++] Refactor the tests for ranges::{advance,next,prev}

This makes all the tests consistent and improves code coverage. This also
uncovers a bug with negative indices in advance() (which also impacts
prev()) -- I'll fix that in a subsequent patch.

I chose to only count operations in the tests for ranges::advance because
doing so in prev() and next() too was reaching diminishing returns, and
didn't meaningfully improve our test coverage.