Autotests in C++ do not envelop such a case: (}})
You should expand them cause they are built in according some chosen patterns which are not comprehensive

in my system cout << sizeof(long); gives 4 (Bytes), on the site it gives 8 (Bytes). Well, I have to use long long in my system, then change the type for the site

If you receive a long, and max value for long is of course 2147483647, then how would it be possible that you receive 6922181194580306956 as input?

Hint: cout << sizeof(long);.

Hi! Why do argument and returned types in C++ solution have type of long: long nextBigger(long n)?
Whereas in tests I got enormous values of argument, such as 6922181194580306956, and max value of long is 2147483647 of course.

Unpublishing due to many old unresolved issues.

This kata is a duplicate of other kata (for example, this one: https://www.codewars.com/kata/5254ca2719453dcc0b00027d) and most probably will not leave beta.

When will it be able in c++?
When will it stop being Beta?

You're mistaken. Attempt tests are the real tests. However a code not working is not a kata issue. See the documentation: https://docs.codewars.com/training/troubleshooting/

It is. The function that's being tested is (as provided in the initial code) this one:

bool valid_braces(std::string braces);

Your code doesn't contain something like this, therefore the error message.

During atempt I got such message:

In file included from main.cpp:7:
./tests.cpp:12:5: error: use of undeclared identifier 'valid_braces'
valid( "()" );
^

I guess it is not problem of my code. Right?

You are wrong. We don't know what you are printing, but the kata is fine. Please stop spamming non senses and read this: https://docs.codewars.com/training/troubleshooting/

I spent so much time to seek proper algorithm, and in result I faced authors mistake!
Maybe this kata worth to solve it just for preparing to other one - https://www.codewars.com/kata/5518a860a73e708c0a000027

I had:
base: 0 power: 0 res: 1
Expected: equal to 0
Actual: 1

Meanwhile in description we have: Also, please take 0^0 to be 1.

You're misreading the logs.