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
Move the tests to libcxx so they no longer need `REQUIRES: libc++`.
Verify tests don't need `REQUIRES: libc++`.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106673
cxx20_iterator_traits.compile.pass.cpp actually depends on
implementation details of libc++, which is not great;
but I just left a comment and moved on.
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
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
Implements parts of:
* P0896R4 The One Ranges Proposal
Depends on D99855.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99863
Implements parts of:
* P0896R4 The One Ranges Proposal
* LWG3446 `indirectly_readable_traits` ambiguity for types with both `value_type` and `element_type`
Depends on D99141.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99461
The testing script used to test libc++ historically did not like directories
without any testing files, so these tests had been added. Since this is
not necessary anymore, we can now remove these files. This has the benefit
that the total number of tests reflects the real number of tests more
closely, and we also skip some unnecessary work (especially relevant when
running tests over SSH).
However, some nothing_to_do.pass.cpp tests actually serve the purpose of
documenting that an area of the Standard doesn't need to be tested, or is
tested elsewhere. These files are not removed by this commit.
Removal done with:
import os
import itertools
for (dirpath, dirnames, filenames) in itertools.chain(os.walk('./libcxx/test'),
os.walk('./libcxxabi/test')):
if len(filenames + dirnames) > 1 and \
any(p == 'nothing_to_do.pass.cpp' for p in filenames):
os.remove(os.path.join(dirpath, 'nothing_to_do.pass.cpp'))
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
zoecarver