When we ship LLVM 16, <ranges> won't be considered experimental anymore.
We might as well do this sooner rather than later.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132151
All supported compilers that support C++20 now support concepts. So, remove
`_LIB_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS` in favor of `_LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17`. Similarly in
the tests, remove `// UNSUPPORTED: libcpp-no-concepts`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121528
The logic here is that we are disabling *only* things in `std::ranges::`.
Everything in `std::` is permitted, including `default_sentinel`, `contiguous_iterator`,
`common_iterator`, `projected`, `swappable`, and so on. Then, we include
anything from `std::ranges::` that is required in order to make those things
work: `ranges::swap`, `ranges::swap_ranges`, `input_range`, `ranges::begin`,
`ranges::iter_move`, and so on. But then that's all. Everything else (including
notably all of the "views" and the `std::views` namespace itself) is still
locked up behind `_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_INCOMPLETE_RANGES`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118736
In `ranges::advance(iter, n, bound)`, we'd incorrectly handle the case
where bound < iter and n is 0:
int a[10];
int *p = a+5;
int *bound = a+3;
std::ranges::advance(p, 0, bound);
assert(p - a == 5); // we'd return 3 before this patch
This was caused by an incorrect handling of 0 inside __magnitude_geq.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117240
As prefigured in the comments on D115315.
This gives us one unified style for all niebloids,
and also simplifies the modulemap.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116570
This makes all the tests consistent and improves code coverage. This also
uncovers a bug with negative indices in advance() (which also impacts
prev()) -- I'll fix that in a subsequent patch.
I chose to only count operations in the tests for ranges::advance because
doing so in prev() and next() too was reaching diminishing returns, and
didn't meaningfully improve our test coverage.
In the test files, replace the old-style tests with a simple static_assert,
matching the current style as depicted in e.g.
`ranges_uninitialized_default_construct.pass.cpp`.
Preserve `is_function_like` (but renamed to `is_niebloid`) at
ldionne's request. The removal of this test helper will happen
in D116570 if at all.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116384
Defined in [`specialized.algorithms`](wg21.link/specialized.algorithms).
Also:
- refactor the existing non-range implementation so that most of it
can be shared between the range-based and non-range-based algorithms;
- remove an existing test for the non-range version of
`uninitialized_default_construct{,_n}` that likely triggered undefined
behavior (it read the values of built-ins after default-initializing
them, essentially reading uninitialized memory).
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115315
Since we officially don't support several older compilers now, we can
drop a lot of the markup in the test suite. This helps keep the test
suite simple and makes sure that UNSUPPORTED annotations don't rot.
This is the first patch of a series that will remove annotations for
compilers that are now unsupported.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107787
`__function_like` wasn't being exported, so certain properties of the
`ranges` functions weren't being propagated in modules land.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105078
This started as an attempt to fix a GCC 11 warning of misplaced parentheses.
I then noticed that trying to fix the parentheses warning actually triggered
errors in the tests, showing that we were incorrectly assuming that the
implementation of ranges::advance was using operator+= or operator-=.
This commit fixes that issue and makes the tests easier to follow by
localizing the assertions it makes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103272
Implements part of P0896 'The One Ranges Proposal'.
Implements [range.iter.op.prev].
Depends on D102563.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102564
Louis Dionne