There used to be a workaround where we'd pretend that GCC 5 didn't support
C++14 because it doesn't implement it properly. Since that workaround has
been removed (in 1eb211ada1), we need to mark a few individual tests as
failing with GCC 5.
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
The Standard is currently unimplementable. We have to pick between:
1. Not implementing constexpr support properly in std::array<T, 0>
2. Making std::array<T, 0> non-trivial even when T is trivial
3. Returning nullptr from std::array<T, 0>::begin()
Libc++ initially picked (1). In 77b9abfc8e, we started implementing constexpr properly, but lost the guarantee of triviality. Since it seems like both (1) and (2) are really important, it seems like (3) is the only viable option for libc++, after all. This is also what other implementations are doing.
This patch moves libc++ from (1) to (3).
It also:
- Improves the test coverage for the various ways of initializing std::array
- Adds tests for the triviality of std::array
- Adds tests for the aggregate-ness of std::array
Reviewed By: #libc, miscco, EricWF, zoecarver
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80821
This commit adds missing support for constexpr in std::array under all
standard modes up to and including C++20. It also transforms the <array>
tests to check for constexpr-friendliness under the right standard modes.
Fixes https://llvm.org/PR40124
Fixes rdar://57522096
Supersedes https://reviews.llvm.org/D60666
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80452
Tests that require support for Clang-verify are already marked as such
explicitly by their extension, which is .verify.cpp. Requiring the use
of an explicit Lit feature is, after thought, not really helpful.
This is a change in design: we have been bitten in the past by tests not
being enabled when we thought they were. However, the issue was mostly
with file extensions being ignored. The fix for that is not to blindly
require explicit features all the time, but instead to report all files
that are in the suite but that don't match any known test format. This
can be implemented in a follow-up patch.
When the new libc++ test format was enabled, warnings were accidentally
dropped cause they were not part of the %{compile_flags} substitution.
This commit adds them back, however `-Werror` is only used for non-verify
tests (cause it doesn't make sense for verify tests).
This commit is a re-application of 20fd624380, which was reverted in
5ec6fdb058 because it broke the C++03 bot. This failure should have
been fixed in b4fb705e77.
When the new libc++ test format was enabled, warnings were accidentally
dropped cause they were not part of the %{compile_flags} substitution.
This commit adds them back, however `-Werror` is only used for non-verify
tests (cause it doesn't make sense for verify tests).
The libc++ test suite has a lot of old Lit features used to XFAIL tests
and mark them as UNSUPPORTED. Many of them are to workaround problems on
old compilers or old platforms. As time goes by, it is good to go and
clean those up to simplify the configuration of the test suite, and also
to reflect the testing reality. It's not useful to have markup that gives
the impression that e.g. clang-3.3 is supported, when we don't really
test on it anymore (and hence several new tests probably don't have the
necessary markup on them).
We had a workaround because GCC 5 does not evaluate static assertions
that are dependent on template parameters. This commit removes the
workaround and marks the corresponding tests as unsupported with GCC 5.
This has the benefit of bringing the new and the old test formats closer
without having to carry a workaround for an old compiler in the new
test format.
Always depend on the compiler to have a correct implementation of
max_align_t in stddef.h and don't provide a fallback. For pre-C++11,
require __STDCPP_NEW_ALIGNMENT__ in <new> as provided by clang in all
standard modes. Adjust test cases to avoid testing or using max_align_t
in pre-C++11 mode and also to better deal with alignof(max_align_t)>16.
Document requirements of the alignment tests around natural alignment of
power-of-two-sized types.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73245
Forcing -Werror and other warnings means that the test suite isn't
actually testing what most people are seeing in their code -- it seems
better and less arbitrary to compile these tests as close as possible
to the compiler default instead.
Removing -Werror also means that we get to differentiate between
diagnostics that are errors and those that are warnings, which makes
the test suite more precise.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76311
Some tests do not fail at all when -verify is not supported, unless some
arbitrary warning flag is added to make them fail. We currently used
-Werror=unused-result to make them fail, but doing so makes the test
suite a lot more inscrutable. It seems better to just disable those
tests when -verify is not supported.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76256
Summary:
This patch implements https://wg21.link/P0325.
Please mind that at it is my first contribution to libc++, so I may have forgotten to abide to some conventions.
Reviewers: EricWF, mclow.lists, ldionne, lichray
Reviewed By: ldionne, lichray
Subscribers: lichray, dexonsmith, zoecarver, christof, ldionne, libcxx-commits
Tags: #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69882
libcxx/test/std/containers/sequences/array/at.pass.cpp
Need to include <stdexcept> for std::out_of_range.
libcxx/test/std/localization/locale.categories/category.time/*
Need to include <ios> for std::ios.
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
Summary:
Starting in Clang 8.0 and GCC 8.0, `alignof` and `__alignof` return different values in same cases. Specifically `alignof` and `_Alignof` return the minimum alignment for a type, where as `__alignof` returns the preferred alignment. libc++ currently uses `__alignof` but means to use `alignof`. See llvm.org/PR39713
This patch introduces the macro `_LIBCPP_ALIGNOF` so we can control which spelling gets used.
This patch does not introduce any ABI guard to provide the old behavior with newer compilers. However, if we decide that is needed, this patch makes it trivial to implement.
I think we should commit this change immediately, and decide what we want to do about the ABI afterwards.
Reviewers: ldionne, EricWF
Reviewed By: ldionne, EricWF
Subscribers: jyknight, christof, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54814
llvm-svn: 351289
The standard section [array.zero] requires the return value of begin()
and end() methods of a zero-sized array to be unique. Eric Fiselier
clarifies: "That unique value cannot be null, and must be properly aligned".
This patch adds checks for the first part of this clarification: unique
value returned by these methods cannot be null.
Reviewed as https://reviews.llvm.org/D55366.
Thanks to Andrey Maksimov for the patch.
llvm-svn: 348509
The section array.zero says: "The return value of data() is unspecified".
This patch marks all checks of the array<T, 0>.data() return value as
libc++ specific.
Reviewed as https://reviews.llvm.org/D55364.
Thanks to Andrey Maksimov for the patch.
llvm-svn: 348485
This reverts commit 087f065cb0c7463f521a62599884493aaee2ea12.
The tests were failing on 32 bit builds, and I don't have time
to clean them up right now. I'll recommit tomorrow with fixed tests.
llvm-svn: 347816
Summary:
Starting in Clang 8.0 and GCC 8.0, `alignof` and `__alignof` return different values in same cases. Specifically `alignof` and `_Alignof` return the minimum alignment for a type, where as `__alignof` returns the preferred alignment. libc++ currently uses `__alignof` but means to use `alignof`. See llvm.org/PR39713
This patch introduces the macro `_LIBCPP_ALIGNOF` so we can control which spelling gets used.
This patch does not introduce any ABI guard to provide the old behavior with newer compilers. However, if we decide that is needed, this patch makes it trivial to implement.
I think we should commit this change immediately, and decide what we want to do about the ABI afterwards.
Reviewers: ldionne, EricWF
Reviewed By: EricWF
Subscribers: christof, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54814
llvm-svn: 347787
Some tests use type std::max_align_t, but don't include <cstddef> header
directly. As a result, these tests won't compile against some conformant
libraries.
Reviewed as https://reviews.llvm.org/D54645.
Thanks to Andrey Maksimov for the patch.
llvm-svn: 347232
An array T[1] isn't necessarily the same say when it's
a member of a struct. This patch addresses that problem and corrects
the tests to deal with it.
llvm-svn: 324545
Summary:
This patch fixes llvm.org/PR35491 and LWG2157 (https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2157)
The fix attempts to maintain ABI compatibility by replacing the array with a instance of `aligned_storage`.
Reviewers: mclow.lists, EricWF
Reviewed By: EricWF
Subscribers: lichray, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41223
llvm-svn: 324526
Revert "Fix initialization of array<const T, 0> with GCC."
Revert "Make array<const T, 0> non-CopyAssignable and make swap and fill ill-formed."
This reverts commit r324182, r324185, and r324194 which were causing issues with zero-length std::arrays.
llvm-svn: 324309
The standard isn't exactly clear how std::array should handle zero-sized arrays
with const element types. In particular W.R.T. copy assignment, swap, and fill.
This patch takes the position that those operations should be ill-formed,
and makes changes to libc++ to make it so.
This follows up on commit r324182.
llvm-svn: 324185
Summary:
This patch fixes llvm.org/PR35491 and LWG2157 (https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2157)
The fix attempts to maintain ABI compatibility by replacing the array with a instance of `aligned_storage`.
Reviewers: mclow.lists, EricWF
Reviewed By: EricWF
Subscribers: lichray, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41223
llvm-svn: 324182
Louis Dionne