| Message ID | CAFk2RUZN5Hnx4het9S+eJwyfXy0_9LC3R1ic88geTar_Wj3cxQ@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add pretty-printing support for __is_nothrow_{assignable, constructible}. [PR98054] | expand |
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:19:32PM +0200, Ville Voutilainen via Gcc-patches wrote: > OK for trunk if full testsuite passes? Should we consider having some sort > of test that catches such omissions? IMHO this doesn't require a test. > 2020-11-30 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> > > gcc/ > > PR c++/98054 > * cp/cxx-pretty-print.c (pp_cxx_trait_expression): > Add support for __is_nothrow_{assignable,constructible}. No "cp/" please. > diff --git a/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c b/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c > index 058b9c2f4fc..1cdf0772a6b 100644 > --- a/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c > +++ b/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c > @@ -2666,6 +2666,12 @@ pp_cxx_trait_expression (cxx_pretty_printer *pp, tree t) > case CPTK_IS_CONSTRUCTIBLE: > pp_cxx_ws_string (pp, "__is_constructible"); > break; > + case CPTK_IS_NOTHROW_ASSIGNABLE: > + pp_cxx_ws_string (pp, "__is_nothrow_assignable"); > + break; > + case CPTK_IS_NOTHROW_CONSTRUCTIBLE: > + pp_cxx_ws_string (pp, "__is_nothrow_constructible"); > + break; > > default: > gcc_unreachable (); Looks fine, thanks. Marek
On 11/30/20 8:50 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:19:32PM +0200, Ville Voutilainen via Gcc-patches wrote: >> OK for trunk if full testsuite passes? Should we consider having some sort >> of test that catches such omissions? > > IMHO this doesn't require a test. > >> 2020-11-30 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> >> >> gcc/ >> >> PR c++/98054 >> * cp/cxx-pretty-print.c (pp_cxx_trait_expression): >> Add support for __is_nothrow_{assignable,constructible}. > > No "cp/" please. And change the gcc/ above to gcc/cp/. OK with that change. >> diff --git a/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c b/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c >> index 058b9c2f4fc..1cdf0772a6b 100644 >> --- a/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c >> +++ b/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c >> @@ -2666,6 +2666,12 @@ pp_cxx_trait_expression (cxx_pretty_printer *pp, tree t) >> case CPTK_IS_CONSTRUCTIBLE: >> pp_cxx_ws_string (pp, "__is_constructible"); >> break; >> + case CPTK_IS_NOTHROW_ASSIGNABLE: >> + pp_cxx_ws_string (pp, "__is_nothrow_assignable"); >> + break; >> + case CPTK_IS_NOTHROW_CONSTRUCTIBLE: >> + pp_cxx_ws_string (pp, "__is_nothrow_constructible"); >> + break; >> >> default: >> gcc_unreachable (); > > Looks fine, thanks. > > Marek >
diff --git a/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c b/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c index 058b9c2f4fc..1cdf0772a6b 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c +++ b/gcc/cp/cxx-pretty-print.c @@ -2666,6 +2666,12 @@ pp_cxx_trait_expression (cxx_pretty_printer *pp, tree t) case CPTK_IS_CONSTRUCTIBLE: pp_cxx_ws_string (pp, "__is_constructible"); break; + case CPTK_IS_NOTHROW_ASSIGNABLE: + pp_cxx_ws_string (pp, "__is_nothrow_assignable"); + break; + case CPTK_IS_NOTHROW_CONSTRUCTIBLE: + pp_cxx_ws_string (pp, "__is_nothrow_constructible"); + break; default: gcc_unreachable ();
OK for trunk if full testsuite passes? Should we consider having some sort of test that catches such omissions? 2020-11-30 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> gcc/ PR c++/98054 * cp/cxx-pretty-print.c (pp_cxx_trait_expression): Add support for __is_nothrow_{assignable,constructible}.