bbb0f2c759
Our best guess is that the two syntaxes should have exactly equivalent effects, so, let's be consistent with what we do in libcxx/include/. I've left `#include "include/x.h"` and `#include "../y.h"` alone because I'm less sure that they're interchangeable, and they aren't inconsistent with libcxx/include/ because libcxx/include/ never does that kind of thing. Also, use the `_LIBCPP_PUSH_MACROS/POP_MACROS` dance for `<__undef_macros>`, even though it's technically unnecessary in a standalone .cpp file, just so we have consistently one way to do it. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119561
18 lines
517 B
C++
18 lines
517 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
|
|
//
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
#include <variant>
|
|
|
|
namespace std {
|
|
|
|
const char* bad_variant_access::what() const noexcept {
|
|
return "bad_variant_access";
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
} // namespace std
|