31cbe0f240
C++98 and C++03 are effectively aliases as far as Clang is concerned. As such, allowing both std=c++98 and std=c++03 as Lit parameters is just slightly confusing, but provides no value. It's similar to allowing both std=c++17 and std=c++1z, which we don't do. This was discovered because we had an internal bot that ran the test suite under both c++98 AND c++03 -- one of which is redundant. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80926
40 lines
1.2 KiB
C++
40 lines
1.2 KiB
C++
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
//
|
|
// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
|
|
// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
|
|
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
|
|
//
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
// UNSUPPORTED: c++03, c++11
|
|
|
|
// <functional>
|
|
|
|
// Hashing a struct w/o a defined hash should *not* fail, but it should
|
|
// create a type that is not constructible and not callable.
|
|
// See also: https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2543
|
|
|
|
#include <functional>
|
|
#include <cassert>
|
|
#include <type_traits>
|
|
|
|
#include "test_macros.h"
|
|
|
|
struct X {};
|
|
|
|
int main(int, char**)
|
|
{
|
|
using H = std::hash<X>;
|
|
static_assert(!std::is_default_constructible<H>::value, "");
|
|
static_assert(!std::is_copy_constructible<H>::value, "");
|
|
static_assert(!std::is_move_constructible<H>::value, "");
|
|
static_assert(!std::is_copy_assignable<H>::value, "");
|
|
static_assert(!std::is_move_assignable<H>::value, "");
|
|
#if TEST_STD_VER > 14
|
|
static_assert(!std::is_invocable<H, X&>::value, "");
|
|
static_assert(!std::is_invocable<H, X const&>::value, "");
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|