From ef9042a08be14b5ec7ac1deaac84dbab8aa9a45a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Igor Zhukov <fsb4000@yandex.ru>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 22:01:40 +0700
Subject: [PATCH] Implement LWG-3949: atomic<bool>'s trivial destructor dropped
 in C++17 spec wording

---
 tests/std/tests/Dev11_0863628_atomic_compare_exchange/test.cpp | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/std/tests/Dev11_0863628_atomic_compare_exchange/test.cpp b/tests/std/tests/Dev11_0863628_atomic_compare_exchange/test.cpp
index aaa0ae769e6..82e8a7aba72 100644
--- a/tests/std/tests/Dev11_0863628_atomic_compare_exchange/test.cpp
+++ b/tests/std/tests/Dev11_0863628_atomic_compare_exchange/test.cpp
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ constexpr atomic<Bytes<17>> b17_constexpr_v(Bytes<17>{});
 #endif // __clang__
 
 // Also test trivial destructors
-STATIC_ASSERT(is_trivially_destructible_v<atomic<Bytes<1>>>); // these struct cases (and bool)
+STATIC_ASSERT(is_trivially_destructible_v<atomic<Bytes<1>>>); // these struct cases
 STATIC_ASSERT(is_trivially_destructible_v<atomic<Bytes<2>>>); // aren't technically required to work
 STATIC_ASSERT(is_trivially_destructible_v<atomic<Bytes<3>>>); // in the spec, but we think they should
 STATIC_ASSERT(is_trivially_destructible_v<atomic<Bytes<4>>>); // on any reasonable implementation