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
31 lines
938 B
C++
31 lines
938 B
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
|
|
|
|
// <type_traits>
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <type_traits>
|
|
#include <cassert>
|
|
|
|
#include "test_macros.h"
|
|
|
|
int main(int, char**)
|
|
{
|
|
#ifndef __cpp_lib_is_constant_evaluated
|
|
// expected-error@+1 {{no member named 'is_constant_evaluated' in namespace 'std'}}
|
|
bool b = std::is_constant_evaluated();
|
|
#else
|
|
// expected-error@+1 {{static_assert failed}}
|
|
static_assert(!std::is_constant_evaluated(), "");
|
|
// expected-warning@-1 0-1 {{'std::is_constant_evaluated' will always evaluate to 'true' in a manifestly constant-evaluated expression}}
|
|
#endif
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|