[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D92255: [libc++] [P0202] constexpr set_union, set_difference, set_symmetric_difference, merge

[Zoe Carver via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

zoecarver added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/algorithms/alg.sorting/alg.merge/merge_comp.pass.cpp:44
+
+struct NonTrivial {
+    int value;
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> zoecarver wrote:
> > Can we put these all into a header?
> We could, but they're small enough that I think that could wait until we want to use them elsewhere.
> 
> Also, note that the classes in the comparator tests are deliberately //not// `<`-comparable, just to verify that we never accidentally try to use their `operator<`. So we really have 4 different classes here, not just 2.
> 
> Background on my reluctance here: In the process of writing this PR I discovered `TrackedValue`, which @ldionne wrote back in 2015, put in a header, and then never used again. (I wanted to make `NonTrivial` just a `pair<Trivial, TrackedValue>` or something like that; but it turned out that `TrackedValue` wasn't constexpr, so I couldn't use it anyway.)
It looks like this is used in 10 different places. Yes, it's a small class so maybe we don't want to put it in a header for that reason, but if there's a bug that we need to fix later or something needs to be changed, I'd rather update one header than 10 different test files. Additionally, if there is a bug that is only revealed in one of the tests, the other nine classes won't be updated. @ldionne what do you think?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D92255/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D92255