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.
Instead of having different names for the same Lit feature accross code
bases, use the same name everywhere. This NFC commit is in preparation
for a refactor where all three projects will be using the same Lit
feature detection logic, and hence it won't be convenient to use
different names for the feature.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78370
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).
This allows both the old and the new testing formats to handle these
tests with modules enabled.
We also include the modules flags in the %{flags} substitution, which
means that .sh.cpp tests in the old format and all tests in the new
format will use modules flags when enabled.
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
Summary:
The constructors `vector(Iter, Iter, Alloc = Alloc{})` and `assign(Iter, Iter)` don't correctly perform EmplaceConstruction from the result of dereferencing the iterator. This results in them performing an additional and unneeded copy.
This patch addresses the issue by correctly using `emplace_back` in C++11 and newer.
There are also some bugs in our `insert` implementation, but those will be handled separately.
@mclow.lists We should probably merge this into 5.1, agreed?
Reviewers: mclow.lists, dlj, EricWF
Reviewed By: mclow.lists, EricWF
Subscribers: cfe-commits, mclow.lists
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38757
llvm-svn: 315994
This makes them consistent (many comments already used uppercase).
The special REQUIRES, UNSUPPORTED, and XFAIL comments are excluded from this change.
llvm-svn: 309468
Christopher Di Bella