This patch simplifies the implementation of `deque` by removing the `__deque_base` class which results in a lot less indirections and removes the need for `__base::`.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: AdvenamTacet, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132081
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
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
We require move semantics in C++03 anyways, so let's enable them for the containers.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123802
`vector<bool>::const_reference` and `vector<bool>::const_iterator::reference` should be the same type.
Reviewed By: Mordante, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123851
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
Using -isystem marks the headers as system headers, which means that we
don't actually get all the warnings that we'd normally get if we included
the headers as user headers.
The goal of the test suite is normally to mirror as closely as possible
how users would use the library. Technically, this change goes against
that philosophy, since users should be using `-isystem` (if they ever
need to specify the libc++ path explicitly, which should be a rare
occurence). However, I believe fishing out additional warnings from
the headers provides more value, hence this change. Ideally, we'd be
able to still use `-isystem`, but instruct Clang to still emit warnings
from the libc++ headers (e.g. we could tell Clang to emit warnings in
any file inside `<...>/usr/include/c++/v1`).
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne, #libc_abi
Spies: Mordante, EricWF, mstorsjo, mgorny, aheejin, arichardson, philnik, jloser, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118616
We shouldn't be calling `next` via ADL -- and neither should anybody
in the wild be calling it via ADL, so it's not like we need to test
this ADL ability of `next` in particular.
Reviewed as part of D119860.
We shouldn't be calling `distance` via ADL -- and neither should anybody
in the wild be calling it via ADL, so it's not like we need to test
this ADL ability of `distance` in particular.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119685
Remove copy and copy assignment rather than have them as private declarations.
They are superfluous given the move and move assignment.
As a drive-by, also specialize `std::hash` without reopening `namespace std`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118502
... it's easier to suppress warnings internally, where we can detect the compiler.
* Rename `TEST_COMPILER_C1XX` to `TEST_COMPILER_MSVC`
* Rename all `TEST_WORKAROUND_C1XX_<meow>` to `TEST_WORKAROUND_MSVC_<meow>`
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117422
... from testing with MSVC's STL. Mostly truncation warnings and variables that are only used in `LIBCPP_ASSERT`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116878
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
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
Extending std::vector tests in vector.cons module:
- std::vector::assign when source range is bigger than destination
capacity
- construction of empty vector using copy ctor, initializer_list ctor and
others
Reviewed By: ldionne, rarutyun, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114954
Add missing tests for std::vector funcionality to improve code coverage:
- Rewrote access tests to check modification of the container using
the reference returned by the non-const overload
- Added tests for reverse iterators: rbegin, rend, etc.
- Added exception test for vector::reserve
- Extended test cases for vector copy assignment
- Fixed insert_iter_value.pass.cpp to use insert overload with const
value_type& (not with value_type&& which is tested in
iter_rvalue.pass.cpp test)
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, rarutyun, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112438
Disable the constructors taking `(size_type, const value_type&,
allocator_type)` if `allocator_type` is not a valid allocator.
Otherwise, these constructors are considered when resolving e.g.
`(int*, int*, NotAnAllocator())`, leading to a hard error during
instantiation. A hard error makes the Standard's requirement to not
consider deduction guides of the form `(Iterator, Iterator,
BadAllocator)` during overload resolution essentially non-functional.
The previous approach was to SFINAE away `allocator_traits`. This patch
SFINAEs away the specific constructors instead, for consistency with
`basic_string` -- see [LWG3076](wg21.link/lwg3076) which describes
a very similar problem for strings (note, however, that unlike LWG3076,
no valid constructor call is affected by the bad instantiation).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114311
This addresses the usage of `operator&` in `<list>`.
(Note there are still more headers with the same issue.)
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112654
This addresses the usage of `operator&` in `<forward_list>`.
(Note there are still more headers with the same issue.)
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112660
Nikolas Klauser