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
52 lines
1.4 KiB
C++
52 lines
1.4 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, c++14
|
|
|
|
// <mutex>
|
|
|
|
// template <class ...Mutex> class scoped_lock;
|
|
|
|
// scoped_lock& operator=(scoped_lock const&) = delete;
|
|
|
|
#include <mutex>
|
|
#include "test_macros.h"
|
|
|
|
int main(int, char**)
|
|
{
|
|
using M = std::mutex;
|
|
M m0, m1, m2;
|
|
M om0, om1, om2;
|
|
{
|
|
using LG = std::scoped_lock<>;
|
|
LG lg1, lg2;
|
|
lg1 = lg2; // expected-error{{overload resolution selected deleted operator '='}}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
using LG = std::scoped_lock<M>;
|
|
LG lg1(m0);
|
|
LG lg2(om0);
|
|
lg1 = lg2; // expected-error{{overload resolution selected deleted operator '='}}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
using LG = std::scoped_lock<M, M>;
|
|
LG lg1(m0, m1);
|
|
LG lg2(om0, om1);
|
|
lg1 = lg2; // expected-error{{overload resolution selected deleted operator '='}}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
using LG = std::scoped_lock<M, M, M>;
|
|
LG lg1(m0, m1, m2);
|
|
LG lg2(om0, om1, om2);
|
|
lg1 = lg2; // expected-error{{overload resolution selected deleted operator '='}}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|