There are a handful of standard library types that are intended
to support CTAD but don't need any explicit deduction guides to
do so.
This patch adds a dummy deduction guide to those types to suppress
-Wctad-maybe-unsupported (which gets emitted in user code).
This is a re-application of the original patch by Eric Fiselier in
fcd549a7d8 which had been reverted due to reasons lost at this point.
I also added the macro to a few more types. Reviving this patch was
prompted by the discussion on https://llvm.org/D133425.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133535
When we ship LLVM 16, <ranges> won't be considered experimental anymore.
We might as well do this sooner rather than later.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132151
All supported compilers that support C++20 now support concepts. So, remove
`_LIB_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS` in favor of `_LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17`. Similarly in
the tests, remove `// UNSUPPORTED: libcpp-no-concepts`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121528
The logic here is that we are disabling *only* things in `std::ranges::`.
Everything in `std::` is permitted, including `default_sentinel`, `contiguous_iterator`,
`common_iterator`, `projected`, `swappable`, and so on. Then, we include
anything from `std::ranges::` that is required in order to make those things
work: `ranges::swap`, `ranges::swap_ranges`, `input_range`, `ranges::begin`,
`ranges::iter_move`, and so on. But then that's all. Everything else (including
notably all of the "views" and the `std::views` namespace itself) is still
locked up behind `_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_INCOMPLETE_RANGES`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118736
The renames the output_iterator to cpp17_output_iterator. These
iterators are still used in C++20 so it's not possible to change the
current type to the new C++20 requirements. This is done in a similar
fashion as the cpp17_input_iterator.
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117950
This includes an experimental workaround for
LWG3664 "LWG3392 broke std::ranges::distance(a, a+3)",
but the workaround may be incomplete, I'm not sure.
This should be re-audited when LWG3664 is actually adopted,
to see if we need to change anything about our implementation.
See also https://github.com/microsoft/STL/pull/2500
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117940
In `ranges::advance(iter, n, bound)`, we'd incorrectly handle the case
where bound < iter and n is 0:
int a[10];
int *p = a+5;
int *bound = a+3;
std::ranges::advance(p, 0, bound);
assert(p - a == 5); // we'd return 3 before this patch
This was caused by an incorrect handling of 0 inside __magnitude_geq.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117240
As prefigured in the comments on D115315.
This gives us one unified style for all niebloids,
and also simplifies the modulemap.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116570
Instead of storing the wrapped iterator inside the stride_counting_iterator,
store its base so we can have e.g. a stride_counting_iterator of an
input_iterator (which was previously impossible because input_iterators
are not copyable). Also a few other simplifications in stride_counting_iterator.
As a fly-by fix, remove the member base() functions, which are super
confusing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116613
This makes all the tests consistent and improves code coverage. This also
uncovers a bug with negative indices in advance() (which also impacts
prev()) -- I'll fix that in a subsequent patch.
I chose to only count operations in the tests for ranges::advance because
doing so in prev() and next() too was reaching diminishing returns, and
didn't meaningfully improve our test coverage.
In the test files, replace the old-style tests with a simple static_assert,
matching the current style as depicted in e.g.
`ranges_uninitialized_default_construct.pass.cpp`.
Preserve `is_function_like` (but renamed to `is_niebloid`) at
ldionne's request. The removal of this test helper will happen
in D116570 if at all.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116384
AFAICT, Cpp17InputIterators are not required to be default constructible,
since that requirement is added in Cpp17ForwardIterator. Hence, our
archetype for Cpp17InputIterator should not be default constructible.
Removing that constructor has a ripple effect on a couple of tests that
were making incorrect assumptions. Notably:
- Some tests were using cpp17_input_iterator as a sentinel for itself.
That is not valid, because a cpp17_input_iterator is not semiregular
anymore after the change (and hence it doesn't satisfy sentinel_for).
- Some tests were using a stride-counted cpp17_input_iterator as the
sentinel for a range. This doesn't work anymore because of the problem
above, so these tests were changed not to check stride counts for
input iterators.
- Some tests were default constructing cpp17_input_iterator when a simple
alternative was available -- those have been changed to use that alternative.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115806
Defined in [`specialized.algorithms`](wg21.link/specialized.algorithms).
Also:
- refactor the existing non-range implementation so that most of it
can be shared between the range-based and non-range-based algorithms;
- remove an existing test for the non-range version of
`uninitialized_default_construct{,_n}` that likely triggered undefined
behavior (it read the values of built-ins after default-initializing
them, essentially reading uninitialized memory).
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115315
Since we officially don't support several older compilers now, we can
drop a lot of the markup in the test suite. This helps keep the test
suite simple and makes sure that UNSUPPORTED annotations don't rot.
This is the first patch of a series that will remove annotations for
compilers that are now unsupported.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107787
See LWG reflector thread of 2021-07-23 titled
'Question on ranges::advance and "past-the-sentinel iterators"'.
Test case heavily based on one graciously provided by Casey Carter.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106735
`__function_like` wasn't being exported, so certain properties of the
`ranges` functions weren't being propagated in modules land.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105078
This started as an attempt to fix a GCC 11 warning of misplaced parentheses.
I then noticed that trying to fix the parentheses warning actually triggered
errors in the tests, showing that we were incorrectly assuming that the
implementation of ranges::advance was using operator+= or operator-=.
This commit fixes that issue and makes the tests easier to follow by
localizing the assertions it makes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103272
Implements part of P0896 'The One Ranges Proposal'.
Implements [range.iter.op.prev].
Depends on D102563.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102564
Implements part of P0896 'The One Ranges Proposal'.
Implements [range.iter.op.next].
Depends on D101922.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102563
Louis Dionne