<chrono>: Make tzdb_list's internal ctor harder to unintentionally use
#4229
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ionally use. tzdb_list has "unspecified additional constructors". GH 4119 added defenses to time_zone and time_zone_link, so we should update tzdb_list similarly. This was found by llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/time/time.zone/time.zone.db/time.zone.db.list/types.compile.pass.cpp .
CaseyCarter
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2023
|
I'm mirroring this to the MSVC-internal repo - please notify me if any further changes are pushed. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
tzdb_listhas "unspecified additional constructors", WG21-N4964 [time.zone.db.list]. #4119 added defenses totime_zoneandtime_zone_link, so we should updatetzdb_listsimilarly.This was found by
llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/time/time.zone/time.zone.db/time.zone.db.list/types.compile.pass.cppin the upcoming libcxx update that I'm working on. While this isn't a conformance issue, it's better to strengthen our product than weaken their test here.