031a3d203a
Summary: This patch marks *most* tests for `std::promise`, `std::future` and `std::shared_future` as unsupported in C++03. These tests fail in C++03 mode because they attempt to copy a `std::future` even though it is a `MoveOnly` type. AFAIK the missing move-semantics in `std::future` is the only reason these tests fail but without move semantics these classes are useless. For example even though `std::promise::set_value` and `std::promise::set_exception(...)` work in C++03 `std::promise` is still useless because we cannot call `std::promise::get_future(...)`. It might be possible to hack `std::move(...)` like we do for `std::unique_ptr` to make the move semantics work but I don't think it is worth the effort. Instead I think we should leave the `<future>` header as-is and mark the failing tests as `UNSUPPORTED`. I don't believe there are any users of `std::future` or `std::promise` in C++03 because they are so unusable. Therefore I am not concerned about losing test coverage and possibly breaking users. However because there are still parts of `<future>` that work in C++03 it would be wrong to `#ifdef` out the entire header. @mclow.lists Should we take further steps to prevent the use of `std::promise`, `std::future` and `std::shared_future` in C++03? Note: This patch also cleans up the tests and converts them to use `support/test_allocator.h` instead of a duplicate class in `test/std/futures/test_allocator.h`. Reviewers: mclow.lists Subscribers: vsk, mclow.lists, cfe-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12135 git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@246271 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
118 lines
2.7 KiB
C++
118 lines
2.7 KiB
C++
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
//
|
|
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
|
|
//
|
|
// This file is dual licensed under the MIT and the University of Illinois Open
|
|
// Source Licenses. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
|
|
//
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
//
|
|
// UNSUPPORTED: libcpp-has-no-threads
|
|
// UNSUPPORTED: c++98, c++03
|
|
|
|
// <future>
|
|
|
|
// class promise<R>
|
|
|
|
// ~promise();
|
|
|
|
#include <future>
|
|
#include <cassert>
|
|
|
|
int main()
|
|
{
|
|
{
|
|
typedef int T;
|
|
std::future<T> f;
|
|
{
|
|
std::promise<T> p;
|
|
f = p.get_future();
|
|
p.set_value(3);
|
|
}
|
|
assert(f.get() == 3);
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
typedef int T;
|
|
std::future<T> f;
|
|
{
|
|
std::promise<T> p;
|
|
f = p.get_future();
|
|
}
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
T i = f.get();
|
|
assert(false);
|
|
}
|
|
catch (const std::future_error& e)
|
|
{
|
|
assert(e.code() == make_error_code(std::future_errc::broken_promise));
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
typedef int& T;
|
|
int i = 4;
|
|
std::future<T> f;
|
|
{
|
|
std::promise<T> p;
|
|
f = p.get_future();
|
|
p.set_value(i);
|
|
}
|
|
assert(&f.get() == &i);
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
typedef int& T;
|
|
std::future<T> f;
|
|
{
|
|
std::promise<T> p;
|
|
f = p.get_future();
|
|
}
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
T i = f.get();
|
|
assert(false);
|
|
}
|
|
catch (const std::future_error& e)
|
|
{
|
|
assert(e.code() == make_error_code(std::future_errc::broken_promise));
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
typedef void T;
|
|
std::future<T> f;
|
|
{
|
|
std::promise<T> p;
|
|
f = p.get_future();
|
|
p.set_value();
|
|
}
|
|
f.get();
|
|
assert(true);
|
|
}
|
|
{
|
|
typedef void T;
|
|
std::future<T> f;
|
|
{
|
|
std::promise<T> p;
|
|
f = p.get_future();
|
|
}
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
f.get();
|
|
assert(false);
|
|
}
|
|
catch (const std::future_error& e)
|
|
{
|
|
// LWG 2056 changed the values of future_errc, so if we're using new
|
|
// headers with an old library the error codes won't line up.
|
|
//
|
|
// Note that this particular check only applies to promise<void>
|
|
// since the other specializations happen to be implemented in the
|
|
// header rather than the library.
|
|
assert(
|
|
e.code() == make_error_code(std::future_errc::broken_promise) ||
|
|
e.code() == std::error_code(0, std::future_category()));
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|