- create the headers (but not include them from `<algorithm>`);
- define the niebloid and its member functions with the right signatures
(as no-ops);
- make sure all the right headers are included that are required by each
algorithm's signature;
- update `CMakeLists.txt` and the module map;
- create the test files with the appropriate synopses.
The synopsis in `<algorithm>` is deliberately not updated because that
could be taken as a readiness signal. The new headers aren't included
from `<algorithm>` for the same reason.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129549
implement `std::ranges::set_intersection` by reusing the classic `std::set_intersenction`
added unit tests
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129233
This patch also adds a new optimization to `std::move`. It unwraps three `reverse_iterator`s if the wrapped iterator is a `contiguous_iterator` and the iterated type is trivially_movable. This allows us to simplify `ranges::move_backward` to a forward to `std::move` without any pessimization.
Reviewed By: var-const, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits, mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126616
Uncomment the tests to ensure `std::ranges::rbegin` and friends are indeed
customization points objects.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126325
`std::views::drops` and `std::views::join` have been implemented, but the tests
verifying the CPOs for them are still commented out. Uncomment the tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125618
This only adds the customization point object (which isn't pipeable),
the view itself has already been implemented previously.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124978
Note that this class was called just `split_view` in the original One
Ranges Proposal and was renamed to `lazy_split_view` by
[P2210](https://wg21.link/p2210).
Co-authored-by: zoecarver <z.zoelec2@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107500
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
This includes an experimental workaround for
LWG3664 "LWG3392 broke std::ranges::distance(a, a+3)",
but the workaround may be incomplete, I'm not sure.
This should be re-audited when LWG3664 is actually adopted,
to see if we need to change anything about our implementation.
See also https://github.com/microsoft/STL/pull/2500
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117940
The tests for these are just copy-pasted from the tests for std::{strong,weak,partial}_order,
and then I added an extra clause in each (test_2()) to test the stuff that's not just the same
as std::*_order.
This also includes the fix for https://wg21.link/LWG3465 (which falls naturally out of the
"you must write it three times" style, but I've added test cases for it also).
There is an action item here to go back and give good diagnostics for SFINAE failures
in these CPOs. I've filed this as https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53456 .
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111514
This will detect if someone writes `inline auto cpo =` instead of
`inline constexpr auto cpo =`. I don't know how that'd be possible,
but it's easy to test, so let's test it.
Konstantin Varlamov