[llvm-bugs] [Bug 41577] New: test/std/utilities/optional/optional.object/optional.object.ctor/move.fail.cpp has wrong assumption

[via llvm-bugs]

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41577

            Bug ID: 41577
           Summary: test/std/utilities/optional/optional.object/optional.o
                    bject.ctor/move.fail.cpp has wrong assumption
           Product: libc++
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P
         Component: All Bugs
          Assignee: unassignedclangbugs at nondot.org
          Reporter: zilla at kayari.org
                CC: llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org, mclow.lists at gmail.com

std/utilities/optional/optional.object/optional.object.ctor/move.fail.cpp

This test assumes that move construction is not constexpr, based on this old
wording quoted in the test:

// constexpr optional(const optional<T>&& rhs);
//   If is_trivially_move_constructible_v<T> is true,
//    this constructor shall be a constexpr constructor.

That was replaced by https://wg21.link/p0602r4 and now it says:

"If is_trivially_move_constructible_v<T> is true, this constructor is trivial."

That means the constructor might still be constexpr even if it's non-trivial.

It's not clear to me whether the constructor is *required* to be constexpr, but
I think the test is wrong to assume the move construction *can't* be constexpr
(the test compiles using the std::optional from libstdc++, but 'lit' expects it
to be ill-formed).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-bugs/attachments/20190424/b0c5eaf2/attachment-0001.html>