From f49d7192a7cae9ce2dd42dbd3a3cf790e247b1ef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:49:23 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Commented out a couple of corner case tests

[SVN r16092]
---
 test/has_trivial_destructor_test.cpp | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/test/has_trivial_destructor_test.cpp b/test/has_trivial_destructor_test.cpp
index 5a498bf..e7a2f54 100644
--- a/test/has_trivial_destructor_test.cpp
+++ b/test/has_trivial_destructor_test.cpp
@@ -137,8 +137,14 @@ BOOST_CHECK_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT(::tt::has_trivial_destructor<mp>::value, true);
 BOOST_CHECK_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT(::tt::has_trivial_destructor<cmf>::value, true);
 BOOST_CHECK_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT(::tt::has_trivial_destructor<enum_UDT>::value, true);
 
-BOOST_CHECK_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT(::tt::has_trivial_destructor<int&>::value, false);
-BOOST_CHECK_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT(::tt::has_trivial_destructor<const int&>::value, false);
+//
+// These are commented out for now because it's not clear what the semantics should be:
+// on the one hand references always have trivial destructors (in the sence that there is
+// nothing to destruct), on the other hand the thing referenced may not have a trivial
+// destructor, it really depends upon the users code as to what should happen here:
+//
+//BOOST_CHECK_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT(::tt::has_trivial_destructor<int&>::value, false);
+//BOOST_CHECK_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT(::tt::has_trivial_destructor<const int&>::value, false);
 BOOST_CHECK_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT(::tt::has_trivial_destructor<int[2]>::value, true);
 BOOST_CHECK_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT(::tt::has_trivial_destructor<int[3][2]>::value, true);
 BOOST_CHECK_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT(::tt::has_trivial_destructor<int[2][4][5][6][3]>::value, true);