[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++]libcxx constexpr deque (PR #200929)

[Hristo Hristov via libcxx-commits]

Zingam wrote:

> > What about #129368. Should we close it?
> 
> I believe the approaches used in #129368 for product code is better than those this PR, and #129368 can be considered more completed, except for failing tests. So I want to reduce this PR to mere addition of lightweight tests, and then merge #129368 after this PR.

@frederick-vs-ja Do you still consider the above as a viable option? I had a quick look at the tests in this PR and I think I don't like what I see. If that's still the (possible) plan. I'd propose to close this PR and copy over the relevant bits to the original PR: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129368

What I mean we keep the changes to the tests in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129368 e.g.

Converting everything to the newer pattern:

```c++
constexpr bool test() {
   ...
   return true;
}

int main(...) {
   test();
}
```

but then insert the simplified tests:

```c++
constexpr bool test() {
   ...
   return true;
}

constexpr bool test_constexpr() {
   ...
}

int main(...) {
   test();
   ...
   test_contexpr();
   static_assert(test_constexpr());
   ...
}
```

I think that's what you propose, right?

I'd expect that similar issues could uncover themselves in the dependent `<stack>` and `<queue>`.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/200929