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
A span has no idea what container (if any) "owns" its iterators, nor
under what circumstances they might become invalidated.
However, continue to use `__wrap_iter<T*>` instead of raw `T*` outside
of debug mode, because we've been shipping `std::span` since Clang 7
and ldionne doesn't want to break ABI. (Namely, the mangling of functions
taking `span::iterator` as a parameter.) Permit using raw `T*` there,
but only under an ABI macro: `_LIBCPP_ABI_SPAN_POINTER_ITERATORS`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101003
To run llvm-lit manually from the command line:
./bin/llvm-lit -sv --param std=c++2b --param cxx_under_test=`pwd`/bin/clang \
--param debug_level=1 ../libcxx/test/
Tests that currently fail with `debug_level=1` are marked `LIBCXX-DEBUG-FIXME`,
but my intent is to deal with all of them and leave no such annotations in
the codebase within the next couple weeks. (I have patches for all of them
in my local checkout.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100866
* `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
This is the initial patch to implement ranges in libc++.
Implements parts of:
- P0896R4 One Ranges Proposal
- P1870 forwarding-range is too subtle
- LWG3379 in several library names is misleading
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, cjdb, zoecarver, Quuxplusone
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90999
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
* improve coverage in `span`'s "conversion from `std::array`" test, while eliminating MSVC diagnostics about `testConstructorArray<T>() && testConstructorArray<const T, T>()` being redundant when `T` is already `const`.
* Remove use of `is_assignable` that triggers UB due to an insufficiently-complete type argument in `std::function`'s assignment operator test.
* Don't test that `shared_ptr` initialization from an rvalue triggers the lvalue aliasing constructor on non-libc++; this is not the case for Standard Libraries that implement LWG-2996. (Ditto, I'd simply remove this but it's your library ;).)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80030
This implements the relaxed requirements on the std::array constructors of span,
where the type only needs to be convertible to the element type of the span.
Note that the previous tests were not sufficient, as the const array<T, n> constructor
was only tested for compile time and the array<T, N> only during runtime.
Restructure the tests so that we can test conversions as well as both constructors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75706
The default constructor of a static span requires _Extent == 0 so
SFINAE it out rather than using a static_assert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71994
The static asserts in span<T, N>::front() and span<T, N>::back() are
incorrect as they may be triggered from valid code due to evaluation
of a never taken branch:
span<int, 0> foo;
if (!foo.empty()) {
auto x = foo.front();
}
The problem is that the branch is always evaluated by the compiler,
creating invalid compile errors for span<T, 0>.
Thanks to Michael Schellenberger Costa for the patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71995
The calculation _Offset + _Count <= size() may overflow, so use
_Count <= size() - _Offset instead. Note that this is safe due to
the previous constraint that _Offset <= size().
Patch by Michael Schellenberger Costa.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71998
The extent of the returned span was always std::dynamic_extent, which
is incorrect.
Thanks to Michael Schellenberger Costa for the patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71997
Both methods have compile time constraints that we should test against.
Patch by Michael Schellenberger Costa
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71999
span.cons/container.pass.cpp
N4842 22.7.3.2 [span.cons]/13 constrains span's range constructor
for ranges::contiguous_range (among other criteria).
24.4.5 [range.refinements]/2 says that contiguous_range requires data(),
and (via contiguous_range, random_access_range, bidirectional_range,
forward_range, input_range, range) it also requires begin() and end()
(see 24.4.2 [range.range]/1).
Therefore, IsAContainer needs to provide begin() and end().
(Detected by MSVC's concept-constrained implementation.)
span.cons/stdarray.pass.cpp
This test uses std::array, so it must include <array>.
<span> isn't guaranteed to drag in <array>.
(Detected by MSVC's implementation which uses a forward declaration to
avoid dragging in <array>, for increased compiler throughput.)
span.objectrep/as_bytes.pass.cpp
span.objectrep/as_writable_bytes.pass.cpp
Testing `sp.extent == std::dynamic_extent` triggers MSVC warning
C4127 "conditional expression is constant". Using `if constexpr` is a
simple way to avoid this without disrupting anyone else (as span
requires C++20 mode).
span.tuple/get.pass.cpp
22.7.3.2 [span.cons]/4.3: "Preconditions: If extent is not equal to
dynamic_extent, then count is equal to extent."
These lines were triggering undefined behavior (detected by assertions
in MSVC's implementation).
I changed the count arguments in the first two chunks, followed by
changing the span extents, in order to preserve the test's coverage
and follow the existing pattern.
span.cons/span.pass.cpp
22.7.3.2 [span.cons]/18.1 constrains span's converting constructor with
"Extent == dynamic_extent || Extent == OtherExtent is true".
This means that converting from dynamic extent to static extent is
not allowed. (Other constructors tested elsewhere, like
span(It first, size_type count), can be used to write such code.)
As this is the test for the converting constructor, I have:
* Removed the "dynamic -> static" case from checkCV(), which is
comprehensive.
* Changed the initialization of std::span<T, 0> s1{}; in
testConstexprSpan() and testRuntimeSpan(), because s1 is used below.
* Removed ASSERT_NOEXCEPT(std::span<T, 0>{s0}); from those functions,
as they are otherwise comprehensive.
* Deleted testConversionSpan() entirely. Note that this could never
compile (it had a bool return type, but forgot to say `return`). And it
couldn't have provided useful coverage, as the /18.2 constraint
"OtherElementType(*)[] is convertible to ElementType(*)[]"
permits only cv-qualifications, which are already tested by checkCV().
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
Martin Storsjö