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
65 lines
1.3 KiB
C++
65 lines
1.3 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: libcpp-has-no-threads
|
|
// UNSUPPORTED: c++03, c++11
|
|
|
|
// <shared_mutex>
|
|
|
|
// template <class Mutex> class shared_lock;
|
|
|
|
// void unlock();
|
|
|
|
#include <shared_mutex>
|
|
#include <cassert>
|
|
|
|
#include "test_macros.h"
|
|
|
|
bool unlock_called = false;
|
|
|
|
struct mutex
|
|
{
|
|
void lock_shared() {}
|
|
void unlock_shared() {unlock_called = true;}
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
mutex m;
|
|
|
|
int main(int, char**)
|
|
{
|
|
std::shared_lock<mutex> lk(m);
|
|
lk.unlock();
|
|
assert(unlock_called == true);
|
|
assert(lk.owns_lock() == false);
|
|
#ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_EXCEPTIONS
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
lk.unlock();
|
|
assert(false);
|
|
}
|
|
catch (std::system_error& e)
|
|
{
|
|
assert(e.code().value() == EPERM);
|
|
}
|
|
#endif
|
|
lk.release();
|
|
#ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_EXCEPTIONS
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
lk.unlock();
|
|
assert(false);
|
|
}
|
|
catch (std::system_error& e)
|
|
{
|
|
assert(e.code().value() == EPERM);
|
|
}
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|