* GCC5 compat: work around inherited constructor issues
Don't use inherited constructors, forward manually instead. This
basically reverts 61f803126d.
I believe that GCC5 does not implement P0136, a C++17 change that made
inherited constructors actually usable and was backported as a DR all
the way to C++11.
* GCC5 compat: bypass std::pair construction issue
Co-authored-by: Martin Hořeňovský <martin.horenovsky@gmail.com>
The old compiler was no longer built-for, so it couldn't link
against new versions, and also didn't properly provide the
user-config header.
Closes#2396
MinGW doesn't support `__try` and friends at all, while Clang
only supports it partially, and the test would require some
changes to make it work there. Since this is only a test, we can
afford to keep it MSVC-only.
Closes#2447
Reported as an issue on Discord. I thought that by GCC 9, the
C++ frontend was fixed enough to support `_Pragma`-based
suppression correctly, but apparently I was wrong.
This fixes multiple issues with random generators, with the most
important one being that multiple nested generators could return
values from the same sequence, due to internal implementation
details of `GENERATE`, and how they interact with test case
paths.
The cost of doing this is that given this simple `TEST_CASE`,
```cpp
TEST_CASE("foo") {
auto i = GENERATE(take(10, random(0, 100));
SECTION("A") {
auto j = GENERATE(take(10, random(0, 100));
}
SECTION("B") {
auto k = GENERATE(take(10, random(0, 100));
}
}
```
`k` will have different values between running the test as
a whole, e.g. with `./tests "foo"`, and running only the "B"
section with `./tests "foo" -c "B"`.
I consider this an acceptable cost, because the only alternative
would be very messy to implement, and add a lot of brittle and
complex code for relatively little benefit.
If this calculation changes, we will need to instead walk
the current tracker tree whenever a random generator is being
constructed, check for random generators on the path to root,
and take a seed from them.
This might become potentially useful in the future, when we want
to provide the ability to forward jump generators, to be able to
simply reproduce specific input to a test.
I am not yet sure how it would work, but the basic idea is that
it could be similar to the `-c` switch for selecting specific
`SECTION` in a test case.
The old instruction would cause the debugger to be stuck at the
triggering source line forever, while the new one should have the
expected semantics, where the debugger can then single-step,
continue. or generally do things, afterwards.
Closes#2422
This is kinda messy, because there is no good way to signal to
the compiler that some code uses direct comparison of floating
point numbers intentionally, so instead we have to use diagnostic
pragmas.
We also have to over-suppress the test files, because Clang (and
possibly GCC) still issue warnings from template instantiation
even if the instantion site is under warning suppression, so the
template definition has to be under warning suppression as well.
Closes#2406
