These tests for some guy's transparent operator functors were needlessly truncating their
double results to int. Preserving the doubleness makes compilers happier. I'm following
existing practice by adding an "// exact in binary" comment when the result isn't a whole number.
(The changes from 6 to 6.0 and so forth are stylistic, not critical.)
Fixes D27539.
llvm-svn: 289106
constexpr int foo = std::divides<int> () (3, 2);
static_assert ( foo == 1, "" );
- constexpr int bar = std::divides<> () (3.0, 2);
- static_assert ( bar == 1, "" );
+ constexpr double bar = std::divides<> () (3.0, 2);
+ static_assert ( bar == 1.5, "" ); // exact in binary
#endif
}
constexpr int foo = std::minus<int> () (3, 2);
static_assert ( foo == 1, "" );
- constexpr int bar = std::minus<> () (3.0, 2);
- static_assert ( bar == 1, "" );
+ constexpr double bar = std::minus<> () (3.0, 2);
+ static_assert ( bar == 1.0, "" );
#endif
}
constexpr int foo = std::multiplies<int> () (3, 2);
static_assert ( foo == 6, "" );
- constexpr int bar = std::multiplies<> () (3.0, 2);
- static_assert ( bar == 6, "" );
+ constexpr double bar = std::multiplies<> () (3.0, 2);
+ static_assert ( bar == 6.0, "" );
#endif
}
constexpr int foo = std::negate<int> () (3);
static_assert ( foo == -3, "" );
- constexpr int bar = std::negate<> () (3.0);
- static_assert ( bar == -3, "" );
+ constexpr double bar = std::negate<> () (3.0);
+ static_assert ( bar == -3.0, "" );
#endif
}
constexpr int foo = std::plus<int> () (3, 2);
static_assert ( foo == 5, "" );
- constexpr int bar = std::plus<> () (3.0, 2);
- static_assert ( bar == 5, "" );
+ constexpr double bar = std::plus<> () (3.0, 2);
+ static_assert ( bar == 5.0, "" );
#endif
}