Stop checking whether std::strong_* has ::equivalent members.
Any attempt to use these would be a bug, so we shouldn't even look for
them.
diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/std-compare-cxx2a.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/std-compare-cxx2a.cpp
index 6746fb4..941c4fa 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/std-compare-cxx2a.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/std-compare-cxx2a.cpp
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
} // namespace std
auto missing_member_test() {
- // expected-error@+1 {{standard library implementation of 'std::partial_ordering' is not supported; member 'equivalent' is missing}}
+ // expected-error@+1 {{standard library implementation of 'std::partial_ordering' is not supported; member 'less' is missing}}
return (1.0 <=> 1.0);
}
@@ -35,13 +35,13 @@
inline namespace __1 {
struct strong_ordering {
long long value;
- static const strong_ordering equivalent; // expected-note {{declared here}}
+ static const strong_ordering equal; // expected-note {{declared here}}
};
} // namespace __1
} // namespace std
auto test_non_constexpr_var() {
- // expected-error@+1 {{standard library implementation of 'std::strong_ordering' is not supported; member 'equivalent' does not have expected form}}
+ // expected-error@+1 {{standard library implementation of 'std::strong_ordering' is not supported; member 'equal' does not have expected form}}
return (1 <=> 0);
}