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
33 lines
849 B
C++
33 lines
849 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
|
|
//
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
// <memory>
|
|
// UNSUPPORTED: c++03
|
|
|
|
// unique_ptr
|
|
|
|
// test reset
|
|
|
|
#include <memory>
|
|
#include <cassert>
|
|
|
|
#include "unique_ptr_test_helper.h"
|
|
|
|
int main(int, char**) {
|
|
{
|
|
std::unique_ptr<A[]> p;
|
|
p.reset(static_cast<B*>(nullptr)); // expected-error {{no matching member function for call to 'reset'}}
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
std::unique_ptr<int[]> p;
|
|
p.reset(static_cast<const int*>(nullptr)); // expected-error {{no matching member function for call to 'reset'}}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|