compressed_pair is widely used in the library, but most of the uses don't use the tuple parts. To avoid including <tuple> everywhere, use the forward declaration instead in compressed_pair.h
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133331
Adding `[[nodiscard]]` to functions is a conforming extension and done extensively in the MSVC STL.
Reviewed By: ldionne, EricWF, #libc
Spies: #libc_vendors, cjdb, mgrang, jloser, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128267
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
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
- P1252 ("Ranges Design Cleanup") -- deprecate
`move_iterator::operator->` starting from C++20; add range comparisons
to the `<functional>` synopsis. This restores
`move_iterator::operator->` that was incorrectly deleted in D117656;
it's still defined in the latest draft, see
http://eel.is/c++draft/depr.move.iter.elem. Note that changes to
`*_result` types from 6.1 in the paper are no longer relevant now that
these types are aliases;
- P2106 ("Alternative wording for GB315 and GB316") -- add a few
`*_result` types to the synopsis in `<algorithm>` (some algorithms are
not implemented yet and thus some of the proposal still cannot be
marked as done);
Also mark already done issues as done (or as nothing to do):
- P2091 ("Fixing Issues With Range Access CPOs") was already implemented
(this patch adds tests for some ill-formed cases);
- LWG 3247 ("`ranges::iter_move` should perform ADL-only lookup of
`iter_move`") was already implemented;
- LWG 3300 ("Non-array ssize overload is underconstrained") doesn't
affect the implementation;
- LWG 3335 ("Resolve C++20 NB comments US 273 and GB 274") was already
implemented;
- LWG 3355 ("The memory algorithms should support move-only input
iterators introduced by P1207") was already implemented (except for
testing).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126053
Since those features are general properties of the environment, it makes
sense to use them from libc++abi too, and so the name libcpp-has-no-xxx
doesn't make sense.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126482
This supersedes and incoroporates content from both D108906 and D54966,
and also some original content.
Co-Authored-by: Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-by: Gonzalo Brito Gadeschi
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118938
This patch implements P0674R1, i.e. support for arrays in std::make_shared
and std::allocate_shared.
Co-authored-by: Zoe Carver <z.zoelec2@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62641
Addresses LWG 3548 which mandates that when shared_ptr is being constructed from a unique_ptr, the unique_ptr's deleter should be moved and not copied.
Reviewed By: #libc, philnik, EricWF
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119159
This should make CI consistent on all the compilers we support. Most of
this patch is working around various warnings emitted by GCC in our code
base, which are now being shown when we compile the tests.
After this patch, the whole test suite should be warning free on all
compilers we support and test, except for a few warnings on GCC that
we silence explicitly until we figure out the proper fix for them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120684
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
This reverts commit 276ca873. That commit has quite a history at this
point. It was first landed in dbc647643577, which broke std::shared_ptr<T const>
and was reverted in 9138666f5. It was then re-applied in 276ca873, with
the std::shared_ptr issue fixed, but it caused widespread breakage at
Google (which suggests it would cause similar breakage in the wild too),
so now I'm reverting again.
Instead, I will add a escape hatch that vendors can turn on to enable
the extension and perform a phased transition over one or two releases
like we sometimes do when things become non-trivial.
This extension is a portability trap for users, since no other standard
library supports it. Furthermore, the Standard explicitly allows
implementations to reject std::allocator<cv T>, so allowing it is
really going against the current.
This was discovered in D120684: this extension required `const_cast`ing
in `__construct_range_forward`, a fishy bit of code that can be removed
if we don't support the extension anymore.
This is a re-application of dbc647643577, which was reverted in 9138666f5
because it broke std::shared_ptr<T const>. Tests have now been added and
we've made sure that std::shared_ptr<T const> wouldn't be broken in this
version.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120996
This extension is a portability trap for users, since no other standard
library supports it. Furthermore, the Standard explicitly allows
implementations to reject std::allocator<cv T>, so allowing it is
really going against the current.
This was discovered in D120684: this extension required `const_cast`ing
in `__construct_range_forward`, a fishy bit of code that can be removed
if we don't support the extension anymore.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120996
* Default-initialized `basic_string` iterators are not portably in the domain of `==`.
* Avoid comparing iterators from non-equal string_views which MSVCSTL considers not to be in the domain of equality.
* Don't test invalid range `[in, out + N)`.
Also silence some truncation warnings by testing with a non-narrowing conversion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118049
This reverts commit 640beb38e7.
That commit caused performance degradtion in Quicksilver test QS:sGPU and a functional test failure in (rocPRIM rocprim.device_segmented_radix_sort).
Reverting until we have a better solution to s_cselect_b64 codegen cleanup
Change-Id: Ibf8e397df94001f248fba609f072088a46abae08
Reviewed By: kzhuravl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115960
Change-Id: Id169459ce4dfffa857d5645a0af50b0063ce1105
Also:
- refactor out `__voidify`;
- use the `destroy` algorithm internally;
- refactor out helper classes used in tests for `uninitialized_*`
algorithms.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115626
There is no need to check the counters on `Counted` after destroying
elements in the range because these tests are not testing `destroy`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115839
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
Make test_allocator etc. constexpr-friendly so they can be used to test constexpr string and possibly constexpr vector
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110994
Also fix a few places in the `shared_ptr` implementation where
`element_type` was passed to the `__is_compatible` helper. This could
result in `remove_extent` being applied twice to the pointer's template
type (first by the definition of `element_type` and then by the helper),
potentially leading to somewhat less readable error messages for some
incorrect code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112092
The only possible kind of a conversion in initialization of a shared
pointer to an array is a qualification conversion (i.e., adding
cv-qualifiers). This patch adds tests for converting from `A[]` to
`const A[]` to the following functions:
```
template<class Y> explicit shared_ptr(Y* p);
template<class Y> shared_ptr(const shared_ptr<Y>& r);
template<class Y> shared_ptr(shared_ptr<Y>&& r);
template<class Y> shared_ptr& operator=(const shared_ptr<Y>& r);
template<class Y> shared_ptr& operator=(shared_ptr<Y>&& r);
template<class Y> void reset(Y* p);
template<class Y, class D> void reset(Y* p, D d);
template<class Y, class D, class A> void reset(Y* p, D d, A a);
```
Similar tests for converting functions that involve a `weak_ptr` should
be added once LWG issue [3001](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3001)
is implemented.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112048
Currently the member functions std::allocator<T>::allocate,
std::experimental::pmr::polymorphic_allocator::allocate and
std::resource_adaptor<T>::do_allocate throw an exception of type
std::length_error when the requested size exceeds the maximum size.
According to the C++ standard ([allocator.members]/4,
[mem.poly.allocator.mem]/1), std::allocator<T>::allocate and
std::pmr::polymorphic_allocator::allocate must throw a
std::bad_array_new_length exception in this case.
The patch fixes the issue with std::allocator<T>::allocate and changes
the type the exception thrown by
std::experimental::pmr::resource_adaptor<T>::do_allocate to
std::bad_array_new_length as well for consistency.
The patch resolves LWG 3237, LWG 3038 and LWG 3190.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, Quuxplusone
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110846
Some tests repeat the definition of `DELETE_FUNCTION` macro locally.
However, it's not even requred to guard against in the C++03 case since
Clang supports `= delete;` in C++03 mode. A warning is issued but
`libc++` tests run with `-Wno-c++11-extensions`, so this isn't an issue.
Since we don't support other compilers in C++03 mode, `= delete;` is
always available for use. As such, inline all calls of `DELETE_FUNCTION`
to use `= delete;`.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111148
Louis Dionne