[PATCH] D26136: Protect exceptional path under libcpp-no-exceptions

[Marshall Clow via cfe-commits]

mclow.lists added a comment.

This all looks ok to me - all mechanical changes.
I wonder if there's a better way to refactor these - there's all that duplicated code.

Does this look any better to you?
Replace:

  try
  {
      s.replace(pos1, n1, str, pos2);
      LIBCPP_ASSERT(s.__invariants());
      assert(pos1 <= old_size && pos2 <= str.size());
      assert(s == expected);
      typename S::size_type xlen = std::min(n1, old_size - pos1);
      typename S::size_type rlen = std::min(S::npos, str.size() - pos2);
      assert(s.size() == old_size - xlen + rlen);
  }
  catch (std::out_of_range&)
  {
      assert(pos1 > old_size || pos2 > str.size());
      assert(s == s0);
  }

with:

  if(pos1 <= old_size && pos2 <= str.size())
  {
      s.replace(pos1, n1, str, pos2);
      LIBCPP_ASSERT(s.__invariants());
      assert(s == expected);
      typename S::size_type xlen = std::min(n1, old_size - pos1);
      typename S::size_type rlen = std::min(S::npos, str.size() - pos2);
      assert(s.size() == old_size - xlen + rlen);
  }
  #ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_EXCEPTIONS
  else
  {
      try { s.replace(pos1, n1, str, pos2); }
      catch (std::out_of_range&)
      {
          assert(pos1 > old_size || pos2 > str.size());
          assert(s == s0);
      }
  }
  #endif



================
Comment at: test/std/strings/basic.string/string.access/at.pass.cpp:42
+    if (pos < cs.size())
+    {
+        assert(s.at(pos) == s[pos]);
----------------
I think you should just test `s.size()` here, not both `s` and `cs`.  (the original code got it wrong, too)
The assert at L45 can be removed.



https://reviews.llvm.org/D26136