In D99104#2642503, @ldionne wrote:

I must admit I agree with @EricWF's comment about .compile.pass.cpp tests potentially causing runtime tests to be skipped.

In D96660#2567420, @cjdb wrote:

In D96660#2566031, @CaseyCarter wrote:

In D96660#2564818, @miscco wrote:

As far as I can tell the last clause from common_reference is specifically made for something like reference_wrapper types

It's specifically for "Pre-LWG-2993 reference_wrapper"-like types; modern reference_wrapper doesn't need it. In fact the only test case I know of for that last clause is to implement pre-LWG-2993 reference_wrapper and check common_reference_t<old_reference_wrapper<meow>, meow&>.

@CaseyCarter does MSVC test this? I couldn't find it when I looked for an example.

In D96660#2564818, @miscco wrote:

As far as I can tell the last clause from common_reference is specifically made for something like reference_wrapper types

In D96786#2565654, @ldionne wrote:

In D96786#2565638, @mclow.lists wrote:

That cppreference page you quote says:

The same words are defined in the C programming language in the include file <iso646.h> as macros. Because in C++ these are built into the language, the C++ version of <iso646.h>, as well as <ciso646>, does not define anything.

I agree with Marshall. I think the better approach here would be to file a bug against MSVC and ask them why they do not define the alternate operator representations as keywords in their compiler. If there's a good reason, we could go with your patch because it doesn't cost us much.

In D95251#2516256, @zoecarver wrote:

In the issue, I'll ask for clarification and propose either that all these find-like members are marked noexcept or none of them are. The thing that's really making me uneasy is that two of them are and the rest aren't.

In D95251#2516190, @mclow.lists wrote:

• Yes, file an LWG issue.

LGTM! (You should say "Partially implements P0896R4" in the commit log =))

Ah, I see it. I'll add that bit to libc++ so we don't need special casing in the tests.

In D87459#2265864, @ldionne wrote:

What paper is this? I searched but failed to find a paper this falls off from.

I'm not going to "request changes" since I don't want you to feel like I'm asking for a novel on trivial special member functions. I'm just going to "comment" and race out of the review before someone asks me to do work ;)

Thanks for the help, Louis!

• Remove copy-pasta from RUN line in unparsed-requirements.py.
• Simplify code with +=
• Complete test coverage
• Change line endings to LF in new files

Hack together test.

I attempted to address everything. The test may be terrible - I've used LIT casually but never peeked inside until yesterday - so please don't refrain from telling me how to improve it.

Partially address review comments.

In D60951#2026475, @ldionne wrote:

To be clear, I'm trying to move the test suite towards a generic conformance test suite for the Standard, as opposed to a libc++ test suite that happens to be usable by other Standard Libraries. This change highlights that philosophy.

• Guard tests for components that libc++ doesn't implement with // UNSUPPORTED: libc++ and an appropriate comment.

In D79343#2025211, @ldionne wrote:

Regarding the formatting changes, I personally think we should clang-format all of libc++, libc++abi and libunwind in one go. Then we'd be done with these small issues that add up. And we can even add the revision to .git-blame-ignore-revs.

Format issues addressed.

clang-format new/changed sections of code per policy.

I'm not going to reformat *only* my additions per the clang-format instructions - that would be silly - and I suspect that folks would clang-format all of the tests if they actually wanted them formatted, so I won't format the entire file, either.

Review comments.

LGTM. I'll resign rather than approving so the "real" approvers won't be confused and never look at this.

Missing a bunch of "Add a new header" changes (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/libcxx/NOTES.TXT#L19-L29).

@STL_MSFT seems to have already fixed this by removing the problem test cases in bf7dc572f199007cbe042d5ea41bcf873dcedd8f. I'll simply abandon this change.

LGTM. (Resigning as reviewer rather than approving to avoid confusing the folks who are actually authorized to approve.)

(I'm not sure how to withdraw my "Request Changes" without approving - I'm not an authorized approver for libc++ - so I'll "Resign as Reviewer" and see if my red X goes away.)