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
38 lines
1009 B
C++
38 lines
1009 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: libcpp-has-no-threads
|
|
// UNSUPPORTED: c++03, c++11
|
|
// XFAIL: dylib-has-no-shared_mutex
|
|
|
|
// <shared_mutex>
|
|
|
|
// template <class Mutex> class shared_lock;
|
|
|
|
// mutex_type *mutex() const noexcept;
|
|
|
|
#include <shared_mutex>
|
|
#include <cassert>
|
|
|
|
#include "test_macros.h"
|
|
|
|
std::shared_timed_mutex m;
|
|
|
|
int main(int, char**)
|
|
{
|
|
std::shared_lock<std::shared_timed_mutex> lk0;
|
|
assert(lk0.mutex() == nullptr);
|
|
std::shared_lock<std::shared_timed_mutex> lk1(m);
|
|
assert(lk1.mutex() == &m);
|
|
lk1.unlock();
|
|
assert(lk1.mutex() == &m);
|
|
static_assert(noexcept(lk0.mutex()), "mutex() must be noexcept");
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|