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
... 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
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
Forcing -Werror and other warnings means that the test suite isn't
actually testing what most people are seeing in their code -- it seems
better and less arbitrary to compile these tests as close as possible
to the compiler default instead.
Removing -Werror also means that we get to differentiate between
diagnostics that are errors and those that are warnings, which makes
the test suite more precise.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76311
[libcxx] [test] Calling min and max on an empty valarray is UB.
libcxx/test/std/numerics/numarray/template.valarray/valarray.members/min.pass.cpp
libcxx/test/std/numerics/numarray/template.valarray/valarray.members/max.pass.cpp
The calls `v1.min();` and `v1.max();` were emitting nodiscard warnings
with MSVC's STL. Upon closer inspection, these calls were triggering
undefined behavior. N4842 [valarray.members] says:
"T min() const;
8 Preconditions: size() > 0 is true.
T max() const;
10 Preconditions: size() > 0 is true."
As these tests already provide coverage for non-empty valarrays
(immediately above), I've simply deleted the code for empty valarrays.
[libcxx] [test] Add macros to msvc_stdlib_force_include.h (NFC).
libcxx/test/support/msvc_stdlib_force_include.h
These macros are being used by:
libcxx/test/std/utilities/meta/meta.trans/meta.trans.other/result_of11.pass.cpp
Defining them to nothing allows that test to pass.
[libcxx] [test] Silence MSVC warning C5063 for is_constant_evaluated (NFC).
libcxx/test/std/utilities/meta/meta.const.eval/is_constant_evaluated.pass.cpp
This test is intentionally writing code that MSVC intentionally warns
about, so the warning should be silenced.
Additionally, comment an endif for clarity.
[libcxx] [test] Silence MSVC warning C4127 (NFC).
libcxx/test/support/charconv_test_helpers.h
MSVC avoids emitting this warning when it sees a single constexpr value
being tested, but this condition is a mix of compile-time and run-time.
Using push-disable-pop is the least intrusive way to silence this.
[libcxx] [test] Silence MSVC truncation warning (NFC).
libcxx/test/std/containers/sequences/vector/vector.cons/construct_iter_iter.pass.cpp
This test is intentionally truncating float to int, which MSVC
intentionally warns about, so push-disable-pop is necessary.
[libcxx] [test] Avoid truncation warnings in erase_if tests (NFC).
libcxx/test/std/containers/associative/map/map.erasure/erase_if.pass.cpp
libcxx/test/std/containers/associative/multimap/multimap.erasure/erase_if.pass.cpp
libcxx/test/std/containers/unord/unord.map/erase_if.pass.cpp
libcxx/test/std/containers/unord/unord.multimap/erase_if.pass.cpp
These tests use maps with `short` keys and values, emitting MSVC
truncation warnings from `int`. Adding `static_cast` to `key_type`
and `mapped_type` avoids these warnings.
As these tests require C++20 mode (or newer), for brevity I've changed
the multimap tests to use emplace to initialize the test data.
This has no effect on the erase_if testing.
Too many warnings are being disabled too quickly. Warnings are
important to keeping libc++ correct. This patch re-enables two
warnings: -Wconstant-evaluated and -Wdeprecated-copy.
In future, all warnings disabled for the test suite should require
an attached bug. The bug should state the plan for re-enabling that
warning, or a strong case why it should remain disabled.
Muhammad Usman Shahid