C++20 revised the definition of what it means to be an iterator. While
all _Cpp17InputIterators_ satisfy `std::input_iterator`, the reverse
isn't true. D100271 introduces a new test adaptor to accommodate this
new definition (`cpp20_input_iterator`).
In order to help readers immediately distinguish which input iterator
adaptor is _Cpp17InputIterator_, the current `input_iterator` adaptor
has been prefixed with `cpp17_`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101242
This reverts a224bf8ec4 and fixes the
underlying issue.
The underlying issue is simply that MSVC headers contains a define
like "#define __in", where __in is one macro in the MSVC Source
Code Annotation Language, defined in sal.h
Just use a different variable name than "__in"
__indirectly_readable_impl, and add "__in" to nasty_macros.h just
like the existing __out. (Also adding a couple more potentially
conflicting ones.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101613
* `std::ranges::range`
* `std::ranges::sentinel_t`
* `std::ranges::range_difference_t`
* `std::ranges::range_value_t`
* `std::ranges::range_reference_t`
* `std::ranges::range_rvalue_reference_t`
* `std::ranges::common_range`
`range_size_t` depends on `sized_range` and will be added alongside it.
Implements parts of:
* P0896R4 The One Ranges Proposal`
Depends on D100255.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100269
In particular, `span<int>::iterator` may be a raw pointer type
and thus have no nested typedef `iterator::value_type`. However,
we already know that the value_type we expect for `span<int>` is just `int`.
Fix up all other iterator_concept_conformance tests in the same way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101420
Implements parts of:
* P0896R4 The One Ranges Proposal`
Depends on D100073.
Reviewed By: ldionne, zoecarver, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100080
That was originally committed in 04733181b5 and then reverted in
a9f11cc0d9 because it broke several people.
The problem was a missing include of __iterator/concepts.h, which has now
been fixed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100073
Implements parts of:
* P0896R4 The One Ranges Proposal`
Depends on D99873.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100073
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
Tests that require support for Clang-verify are already marked as such
explicitly by their extension, which is .verify.cpp. Requiring the use
of an explicit Lit feature is, after thought, not really helpful.
This is a change in design: we have been bitten in the past by tests not
being enabled when we thought they were. However, the issue was mostly
with file extensions being ignored. The fix for that is not to blindly
require explicit features all the time, but instead to report all files
that are in the suite but that don't match any known test format. This
can be implemented in a follow-up patch.
By renaming .fail.cpp tests that don't need clang-verify to .compile.fail.cpp,
the new test format will not try to compile these tests with clang-verify,
and the old test format will work just the same. However, this allows
removing a workaround that requires parsing each test looking for
clang-verify markup.
After this change, a .fail.cpp test should always have clang-verify markup.
When clang-verify is not supported by the compiler, we will just check that
these tests fail to compile. When clang-verify is supported, these tests
will be compiled with clang-verify whether they have markup or not (so
they should have markup, or they will fail).
This simplifies the test suite and also ensures that all of our .fail.cpp
tests provide clang-verify markup. If it's impossible for a test to have
clang-verify markup, it can be moved to a .compile.fail.cpp test, which
are unconditionally just checked for compilation failure.
The libc++ test suite has a lot of old Lit features used to XFAIL tests
and mark them as UNSUPPORTED. Many of them are to workaround problems on
old compilers or old platforms. As time goes by, it is good to go and
clean those up to simplify the configuration of the test suite, and also
to reflect the testing reality. It's not useful to have markup that gives
the impression that e.g. clang-3.3 is supported, when we don't really
test on it anymore (and hence several new tests probably don't have the
necessary markup on them).
We had a workaround because GCC 5 does not evaluate static assertions
that are dependent on template parameters. This commit removes the
workaround and marks the corresponding tests as unsupported with GCC 5.
This has the benefit of bringing the new and the old test formats closer
without having to carry a workaround for an old compiler in the new
test format.
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
Some tests do not fail at all when -verify is not supported, unless some
arbitrary warning flag is added to make them fail. We currently used
-Werror=unused-result to make them fail, but doing so makes the test
suite a lot more inscrutable. It seems better to just disable those
tests when -verify is not supported.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76256
Summary:
Freestanding is *weird*. The standard allows it to differ in a bunch of odd
manners from regular C++, and the committee would like to improve that
situation. I'd like to make libc++ behave better with what freestanding should
be, so that it can be a tool we use in improving the standard. To do that we
need to try stuff out, both with "freestanding the language mode" and
"freestanding the library subset".
Let's start with the super basic: run the libc++ tests in freestanding, using
clang as the compiler, and see what works. The easiest hack to do this:
In utils/libcxx/test/config.py add:
self.cxx.compile_flags += ['-ffreestanding']
Run the tests and they all fail.
Why? Because in freestanding `main` isn't special. This "not special" property
has two effects: main doesn't get mangled, and main isn't allowed to omit its
`return` statement. The first means main gets mangled and the linker can't
create a valid executable for us to test. The second means we spew out warnings
(ew) and the compiler doesn't insert the `return` we omitted, and main just
falls of the end and does whatever undefined behavior (if you're luck, ud2
leading to non-zero return code).
Let's start my work with the basics. This patch changes all libc++ tests to
declare `main` as `int main(int, char**` so it mangles consistently (enabling us
to declare another `extern "C"` main for freestanding which calls the mangled
one), and adds `return 0;` to all places where it was missing. This touches 6124
files, and I apologize.
The former was done with The Magic Of Sed.
The later was done with a (not quite correct but decent) clang tool:
https://gist.github.com/jfbastien/793819ff360baa845483dde81170feed
This works for most tests, though I did have to adjust a few places when e.g.
the test runs with `-x c`, macros are used for main (such as for the filesystem
tests), etc.
Once this is in we can create a freestanding bot which will prevent further
regressions. After that, we can start the real work of supporting C++
freestanding fairly well in libc++.
<rdar://problem/47754795>
Reviewers: ldionne, mclow.lists, EricWF
Subscribers: christof, jkorous, dexonsmith, arphaman, miyuki, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57624
llvm-svn: 353086
to reflect the new license. These used slightly different spellings that
defeated my regular expressions.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351648
This patch adds tests to ensure that multiset/unordered_multiset's emplace
method correctly constructs the elements without any intervening
constructions.
llvm-svn: 346743
This commit adds a merge member function to all the map and set containers,
which splices nodes from the source container. This completes support for
P0083r3.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48896
llvm-svn: 345744
This commit adds a node handle type, (located in __node_handle), and adds
extract() and insert() members to all map and set types, as well as their
implementations in __tree and __hash_table.
The second half of this feature is adding merge() members, which splice nodes
in bulk from one container into another. This will be committed in a follow-up.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46845
llvm-svn: 338472
Patch from Joe Loser.
Several unit tests meaning to test the behavior of lvalue insertion incorrectly
pass rvalues. Fixes bug PR # 27394
Reviewed as https://reviews.llvm.org/D44411
llvm-svn: 329541
Patch from ngolovliov@gmail.com
Reviewed as: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42344
As described in llvm.org/PR30959, the current
implementation of std::{map, key}::{count, equal_range} in libcxx is
non-conforming. Quoting the C++14 standard [associative.reqmts]p3
> The phrase “equivalence of keys” means the equivalence relation imposed by
> the comparison and not the operator== on keys. That is, two keys k1 and k2 are
> considered to be equivalent if for the comparison object comp,
> comp(k1, k2) == false && comp(k2, k1) == false.
In the same section, the requirements table states the following:
> a.equal_range(k) equivalent to make_pair(a.lower_bound(k), a.upper_bound(k))
> a.count(k) returns the number of elements with key equivalent to k
The behaviour of libstdc++ seems to conform to the standard here.
llvm-svn: 324799
Christopher Di Bella