Guard typedefs and static_asserts with _LIBCPP_VERSION.
test/std/containers/sequences/vector.bool/move_assign_noexcept.pass.cpp
test/std/containers/sequences/vector.bool/move_noexcept.pass.cpp
test/std/containers/sequences/vector.bool/swap_noexcept.pass.cpp
Additionally deal with conditional compilation.
test/std/containers/associative/map/map.cons/move_noexcept.pass.cpp
test/std/containers/associative/multimap/multimap.cons/move_noexcept.pass.cpp
Additionally deal with typedefs used by other typedefs.
Fixes D29135.
llvm-svn: 294154
Various changes:
test/std/algorithms/alg.sorting/alg.merge/inplace_merge.pass.cpp
This is comparing value_type to unsigned. value_type is sometimes int and sometimes struct S (implicitly constructible from int).
static_cast<value_type>(unsigned) silences the warning and doesn't do anything bad (as the values in question are small).
test/std/algorithms/alg.sorting/alg.nth.element/nth_element_comp.pass.cpp
This is comparing an int remote-element to size_t. The values in question are small and non-negative,
so either type is fine. I think that converting int to size_t is marginally better here than the reverse.
test/std/containers/sequences/deque/deque.cons/size.pass.cpp
DefaultOnly::count is int (and non-negative). When comparing to unsigned, use static_cast<unsigned>.
test/std/strings/basic.string/string.access/index.pass.cpp
We're comparing char to '0' through '9', but formed with the type size_t. Add static_cast<char>.
test/std/utilities/template.bitset/bitset.cons/ull_ctor.pass.cpp
Include <cstddef> for pedantic correctness (this test was already mentioning std::size_t).
"v[i] == (i & 1)" was comparing bool to size_t. Saying "v[i] == ((i & 1) != 0)" smashes the RHS to bool.
llvm-svn: 288749
Add static_cast<std::size_t> to more comparisons. (Performed manually, unlike part 8/12.)
Also, include <cstddef> when it wasn't already being included.
llvm-svn: 288746
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
Summary:
To quote STL the problems with stack allocator are"
>"stack_allocator<T, N> is seriously nonconformant to N4582 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements].
> First, it lacks a rebinding constructor. (The nested "struct rebind" isn't sufficient.)
> Second, it lacks templated equality/inequality.
> Third, it completely ignores alignment.
> Finally, and most severely, the Standard forbids its existence. Allocators are forbidden from returning memory "inside themselves". This requirement is implied by the Standard's requirements for rebinding and equality. It's permitted to return memory from a separate buffer object on the stack, though."
This patch attempts to address all of those issues.
First, instead of storing the buffer inside the allocator I've change `stack_allocator` to accept the buffer as an argument.
Second, in order to fix rebinding I changed the parameter list from `<class T, size_t NumElements>` to `<class T, size_t NumBytes>`. This allows allocator rebinding
between types that have different sizes.
Third, I added copy and rebinding constructors and assignment operators.
And finally I fixed the allocation logic to always return properly aligned storage.
Reviewers: mclow.lists, howard.hinnant, STL_MSFT
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25154
llvm-svn: 283631
Summary:
Libc++ still uses per-feature configuration macros when configuring for C++11. However libc++ requires a feature-complete C++11 compiler so there is no reason to check individual features. This patch starts the process of removing the feature specific macros and replacing their usage with `_LIBCPP_CXX03_LANG`.
This patch removes the __config macros:
* _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_TRAILING_RETURN
* _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_TEMPLATE_ALIASES
* _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_ADVANCED_SFINAE
* _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_DEFAULT_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_ARGS
* _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_STATIC_ASSERT
As a drive I also changed our C++03 static_assert to use _Static_assert if available.
I plan to commit this without review if nobody voices an objection.
Reviewers: mclow.lists
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24895
llvm-svn: 282347
Eric Fiselier