[libc++][test] Move the SFINAE test for return types of quoted to libcxx/test/libcxx/
#157026
Conversation
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-libcxx Author: A. Jiang (frederick-vs-ja) Changes[quoted.manip] only specifies that Although it's worthwhile making them SFINAE-friendly, perhaps the SFINAE-friendliness should be considered as a libc++-specific choice at this moment. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157026.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/libcxx/test/std/input.output/iostream.format/quoted.manip/quoted_traits.compile.pass.cpp b/libcxx/test/libcxx/input.output/iostream.format/quoted.manip/quoted_traits.compile.pass.cpp
similarity index 100%
rename from libcxx/test/std/input.output/iostream.format/quoted.manip/quoted_traits.compile.pass.cpp
rename to libcxx/test/libcxx/input.output/iostream.format/quoted.manip/quoted_traits.compile.pass.cpp
|
|
✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter. |
…libcxx/test/libcxx/` [quoted.manip] only specifies that `operator<<`/`operator>>` is well-formed for operands with suitable types, and leaves it undefined whether they are SFINAE-friendly. Although it's worthwhile making them SFINAE-friendly, perhaps the SFINAE-friendliness should be considered as a libc++-specific choice at this moment. Also clang-format the file to make CI happy.
540094d to
2fe1e9e
Compare
I originally only moved the file, but CI complained. I'm not sure whether this is worthy filing an LWG issue. |
You can ignore the formatting CI.
There is implementation divergence, no? That seems like a good reason to ask LWG whether they would like to specify this any further or not. |
[quoted.manip] only specifies that
operator<</operator>>is well-formed for operands with suitable types, and leaves it undefined whether they are SFINAE-friendly.Although it's worthwhile making them SFINAE-friendly, perhaps the SFINAE-friendliness should be considered as a libc++-specific choice at this moment.
Also clang-format the file to make CI happy.