This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This reverts commit 6542cb55a3.
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better to
reword the diagnostic to be more like GCC and say “static assertion”
failed in both C and C++.
consider a c file having code
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
In clang the output is like:
<source>:1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
^ ~
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1
Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better to
reword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gcc
prints as:
<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!"
1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiler returned: 1
The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewording
the static_assert to static assertion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
Display 'static_assert failed: message' instead of
'static_assert failed "message"' to be consistent
with other implementations and be slightly more
readable.
Reviewed By: #libc, aaron.ballman, philnik, Mordante
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128844
Before this patch, we had features named 'libc++', 'libstdc++' and
'msvc' to describe the three implementations that use our test suite.
This patch renames them to 'stdlib=libc++', 'stdlib=libstdc++', etc
to avoid confusion between MSVC's STL and the MSVC compiler (or Clang
in MSVC mode).
Furthermore, this prepares the terrain for adding support for additional
"implementations" to the test suite. Basically, I'd like to be able to
treat Apple's libc++ differently from LLVM's libc++ for the purpose of
testing, because those effectively behave in different ways in some aspects.
C++98 and C++03 are effectively aliases as far as Clang is concerned.
As such, allowing both std=c++98 and std=c++03 as Lit parameters is
just slightly confusing, but provides no value. It's similar to allowing
both std=c++17 and std=c++1z, which we don't do.
This was discovered because we had an internal bot that ran the test
suite under both c++98 AND c++03 -- one of which is redundant.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80926
By renaming .fail.cpp tests that don't need clang-verify to .compile.fail.cpp,
the new test format will not try to compile these tests with clang-verify,
and the old test format will work just the same. However, this allows
removing a workaround that requires parsing each test looking for
clang-verify markup.
After this change, a .fail.cpp test should always have clang-verify markup.
When clang-verify is not supported by the compiler, we will just check that
these tests fail to compile. When clang-verify is supported, these tests
will be compiled with clang-verify whether they have markup or not (so
they should have markup, or they will fail).
This simplifies the test suite and also ensures that all of our .fail.cpp
tests provide clang-verify markup. If it's impossible for a test to have
clang-verify markup, it can be moved to a .compile.fail.cpp test, which
are unconditionally just checked for compilation failure.
The testing script used to test libc++ historically did not like directories
without any testing files, so these tests had been added. Since this is
not necessary anymore, we can now remove these files. This has the benefit
that the total number of tests reflects the real number of tests more
closely, and we also skip some unnecessary work (especially relevant when
running tests over SSH).
However, some nothing_to_do.pass.cpp tests actually serve the purpose of
documenting that an area of the Standard doesn't need to be tested, or is
tested elsewhere. These files are not removed by this commit.
Removal done with:
import os
import itertools
for (dirpath, dirnames, filenames) in itertools.chain(os.walk('./libcxx/test'),
os.walk('./libcxxabi/test')):
if len(filenames + dirnames) > 1 and \
any(p == 'nothing_to_do.pass.cpp' for p in filenames):
os.remove(os.path.join(dirpath, 'nothing_to_do.pass.cpp'))
Summary:
Freestanding is *weird*. The standard allows it to differ in a bunch of odd
manners from regular C++, and the committee would like to improve that
situation. I'd like to make libc++ behave better with what freestanding should
be, so that it can be a tool we use in improving the standard. To do that we
need to try stuff out, both with "freestanding the language mode" and
"freestanding the library subset".
Let's start with the super basic: run the libc++ tests in freestanding, using
clang as the compiler, and see what works. The easiest hack to do this:
In utils/libcxx/test/config.py add:
self.cxx.compile_flags += ['-ffreestanding']
Run the tests and they all fail.
Why? Because in freestanding `main` isn't special. This "not special" property
has two effects: main doesn't get mangled, and main isn't allowed to omit its
`return` statement. The first means main gets mangled and the linker can't
create a valid executable for us to test. The second means we spew out warnings
(ew) and the compiler doesn't insert the `return` we omitted, and main just
falls of the end and does whatever undefined behavior (if you're luck, ud2
leading to non-zero return code).
Let's start my work with the basics. This patch changes all libc++ tests to
declare `main` as `int main(int, char**` so it mangles consistently (enabling us
to declare another `extern "C"` main for freestanding which calls the mangled
one), and adds `return 0;` to all places where it was missing. This touches 6124
files, and I apologize.
The former was done with The Magic Of Sed.
The later was done with a (not quite correct but decent) clang tool:
https://gist.github.com/jfbastien/793819ff360baa845483dde81170feed
This works for most tests, though I did have to adjust a few places when e.g.
the test runs with `-x c`, macros are used for main (such as for the filesystem
tests), etc.
Once this is in we can create a freestanding bot which will prevent further
regressions. After that, we can start the real work of supporting C++
freestanding fairly well in libc++.
<rdar://problem/47754795>
Reviewers: ldionne, mclow.lists, EricWF
Subscribers: christof, jkorous, dexonsmith, arphaman, miyuki, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57624
llvm-svn: 353086
to reflect the new license. These used slightly different spellings that
defeated my regular expressions.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351648
This replaces every occurrence of _LIBCPP_STD_VER in the tests with
TEST_STD_VER. Additionally, for every affected
file, #include "test_macros.h" is being added explicitly if it wasn't
already there.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26294
llvm-svn: 286007
Quite a few libcxx tests seem to follow the format:
#if _LIBCPP_STD_VER > X
// Do test.
#else
// Empty test.
#endif
We should instead use the UNSUPPORTED lit directive to exclude the test on
earlier C++ standards. This gives us a more accurate number of test passes
for those standards and avoids unnecessary conflicts with other lit
directives on the same tests.
Reviewers: bcraig, ericwf, mclow.lists
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20730
llvm-svn: 271108
Muhammad Usman Shahid