[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D102992: [libcxx][type_traits] deprecates `std::is_literal_type` and remove it for C++20

[Mark de Wever via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

Mordante added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/utilities/optional/optional.object/optional.object.dtor/dtor.pass.cpp:56
         static_assert(std::is_literal_type<optional<T>>::value, "");
+#endif
     }
----------------
Wmbat wrote:
> Mordante wrote:
> > Since we disable some tests in C++20 (and later) modes it would be nice to test some other properties. regarding copy constructible/assignable and move constructible/assignable.
> Are those (copy constructible/assignable and move constructible/assignable) really necessary to test in this file which is about `dtor.pass.cpp`. I have seen some tests for those properties elsewhere in the `meta.unary.pop` folder. Would it be possible to elaborate further on what I would have to do?
In that case these tests aren't needed. I just felt it would be nice to have tests instead of the disabled `literal_type` test.


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/utilities/optional/optional.object/optional.object.dtor/dtor.pass.cpp:56
         static_assert(std::is_literal_type<optional<T>>::value, "");
+#endif
     }
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> Wmbat wrote:
> > Mordante wrote:
> > > Since we disable some tests in C++20 (and later) modes it would be nice to test some other properties. regarding copy constructible/assignable and move constructible/assignable.
> > Are those (copy constructible/assignable and move constructible/assignable) really necessary to test in this file which is about `dtor.pass.cpp`. I have seen some tests for those properties elsewhere in the `meta.unary.pop` folder. Would it be possible to elaborate further on what I would have to do?
> In that case these tests aren't needed. I just felt it would be nice to have tests instead of the disabled `literal_type` test.
> Would it be possible to elaborate further on what I would have to do?
Not entirely sure what you mean. I marked the patch as 'needs work' due to the build failures. Others already offered suggestions how to fix these.




Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D102992/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D102992