This is the first step towards disentangling the debug mode and assertions
in libc++. This patch doesn't make any functional change: it simply moves
_LIBCPP_ASSERT-related stuff to its own file so as to make it clear that
libc++ assertions and the debug mode are different things. Future patches
will make it possible to enable assertions without enabling the debug
mode.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119769
As suggested in D117966.
These conditional noexcepts are *permitted* by the Standard (as long
as there were no mistakes in them, I guess); but not *mandated*.
The Standard doesn't put any noexcept-specifications on these member functions.
The same logic would apply to `transform_view::iterator::operator*`
and `transform_view::iterator::operator[]`, but the Standard mandates
conditional noexcept on `iter_move(transform_view::iterator)`, and
I think it doesn't make much sense to say "moving from this iterator
is conditionally noexcept but not-moving from it is noexcept(false),"
so I'm leaving transform_view alone for now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119374
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
With this patch there should be no more namespaces without closing comment
Reviewed By: ldionne, Quuxplusone, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118668
The macro that opts out of `std::ranges::` functionality is called
`_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_INCOMPLETE_RANGES`, and is unrelated to this macro
which is specifically about _compiler_ support for the _syntax_.
The only non-mechanical diff here is in `<__config>`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118507
Implement LWG3549 by making `view_interface` not inherit from `view_base`. Types
are still views if they have a public and unambiguous derivation from
`view_interface`, so adjust the `enable_view` machinery as such to account for
that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117714
Some types that inherit from `view_interface` do not meet the
preconditions. This came up during discussion
in https://reviews.llvm.org/D112631. Currently, the behavior is IFNDR,
but the preconditions can be easily checked, so let's do so.
In particular, we know each public member function calls the
`__derived()` private function, so we can do the check there. We
intentionally do it as a `static_assert` instead of a `requires` clause
to avoid hard erroring in some cases, such as with incomplete types. An
example hard error is:
```
llvm-project/build/include/c++/v1/__ranges/view_interface.h:48:14: note: because 'sizeof(_Tp)' would be invalid: invalid application of 'sizeof' to an incomplete type 'MoveOnlyForwardRange'
requires { sizeof(_Tp); } &&
^
llvm-project/build/include/c++/v1/__ranges/view_interface.h:73:26: error: no matching member function for call to '__derived'
return ranges::begin(__derived()) == ranges::end(__derived());
^~~~~~~~~
llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.utility/view.interface/view.interface.pass.cpp:187:31: note: in instantiation of function template specialization 'std::ranges::view_interface<MoveOnlyForwardRange>::empty<Mov
eOnlyForwardRange>' requested here
assert(!std::move(moveOnly).empty());
```
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, Mordante, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112665
We've been forgetting to add those to most of the <ranges> review.
To avoid forgetting in the future, I added an item in the pre-commit
checklist.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106287
This has been broken out of D104170 since it should be merged whether or
not we go ahead with the module map changes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104175
Louis Dionne