These "implementation detail" function templates were already
hidden and have no specializations in the dylib, so they seem like they can safely
use _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI instead and have the abi tags applied as well.
Seems some of these got over looked (e.g. D129823) in various places, and they
won't be flagged by the new checks added in D129968, as they were
already hidden.
Reviewed by: ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135504
This commit reverts 5aaefa51 (and also partly 7f285f48e7 and b6d75682f9,
which were related to the original commit). As landed, 5aaefa51 had
unintended consequences on some downstream bots and didn't have proper
coverage upstream due to a few subtle things. Implementing this is
something we should do in libc++, however we'll first need to address
a few issues listed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D106124#3349710.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120683
libc++ has started splicing standard library headers into much more
fine-grained content for maintainability. It's very likely that outdated
and naive tooling (some of which is outside of LLVM's scope) will
suggest users include things such as <__ranges/access.h> instead of
<ranges>, and Hyrum's law suggests that users will eventually begin to
rely on this without the help of tooling. As such, this commit
intends to protect users from themselves, by making it a hard error for
anyone outside of the standard library to include libc++ detail headers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106124
David Tenty