The type `MoveOnlyForwardRange` violates the precondition stated in
`view.interface.general`. Specifically, the type passed to
`view_interface` shall model the `view` concept. In turn, this requires the
type to satisfy `movable` concept (and others), but this type
`MoveOnlyForwardRange` does not satisfy the `movable` concept.
Add a move assignment operator so that `MoveOnlyForwardRange` satisfies the
`movable` concept. While we're here, ensure the neighboring types that inherit
from `view_interface` also satisfy the `view` concept to avoid similar issues.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50720
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, Mordante, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112631
Some embedded platforms do not wish to support the C library functionality
for handling wchar_t because they have no use for it. It makes sense for
libc++ to work properly on those platforms, so this commit adds a carve-out
of functionality for wchar_t.
Unfortunately, unlike some other carve-outs (e.g. random device), this
patch touches several parts of the library. However, despite the wide
impact of this patch, I still think it is important to support this
configuration since it makes it much simpler to port libc++ to some
embedded platforms.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111265
The unique (ha!) thing about this range type is that it's move-only.
Its contiguity is unsurprising (most of our test ranges are contiguous).
Discussed in D111231 but committed separately for clarity.
If you have a `begin() const` member, you don't need a `begin()` member
unless you want it to do something different (e.g. have a different return
type). So in general, //view// types don't need `begin()` non-const members.
Also, static_assert some things about the types in "types.h", so that we
don't accidentally break those properties under refactoring.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111231
The existing tests for transform_view::iterator weren't quite right,
and can be simplified now that we have more of C++20 available to us.
Having done that, let's use the same pattern for iota_view::iterator
as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110774
Instead of using a base class to store the members and the optional
size, use [[no_unique_address]] to achieve the same thing without
needing a base class.
Also, as a fly-by:
- Change subrange from struct to class (per the standard)
- Improve the diagnostic for when one doesn't provide a size to the ctor of a sized subrange
- Replace this->member by just member since it's not in a dependent base anymore
This change would be an ABI break due to [[no_unique_address]], but we
haven't shipped ranges anywhere yet, so this shouldn't affect anyone.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110370
Before this patch, we had features named 'libc++', 'libstdc++' and
'msvc' to describe the three implementations that use our test suite.
This patch renames them to 'stdlib=libc++', 'stdlib=libstdc++', etc
to avoid confusion between MSVC's STL and the MSVC compiler (or Clang
in MSVC mode).
Furthermore, this prepares the terrain for adding support for additional
"implementations" to the test suite. Basically, I'd like to be able to
treat Apple's libc++ differently from LLVM's libc++ for the purpose of
testing, because those effectively behave in different ways in some aspects.
Those constructors are very easy to misuse -- one could easily think that
the size passed to the constructor is the size of the range to exhibit
from the subrange. Instead, it's a size hint and it's UB to get it wrong.
Hence, when it's cheap to compute the real size of the range, it's cheap
to make sure that the user didn't get it wrong.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108827
- Rename test files to follow conventions better
- Split constructor tests that were in a single file
- Add missing tests for take_view and transform_view's default constructors
- Add missing tests for transform_view's view/function constructor
- Fix include guards
- Mark some tests as being specific to libc++
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108829
This patch implements the underlying mechanism for range adaptors. It
does so based on http://wg21.link/p2387, even though that paper hasn't
been adopted yet. In the future, if p2387 is adopted, it would suffice
to rename `__bind_back` to `std::bind_back` and `__range_adaptor_closure`
to `std::range_adaptor_closure` to implement that paper by the spec.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107098
The `get` half of this machinery was already implemented, but the `tuple_size`
and `tuple_element` parts were hiding in [ranges.syn] and therefore missed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108054
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
Adds a new CMake option to disable the usage of incomplete headers.
These incomplete headers are not guaranteed to be ABI stable. This
option is intended to be used by vendors so they can avoid their users
from code that's not ready for production usage.
The option is enabled by default.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106763
* <__algorithm/iter_swap.h>
* <__algorithm/swap_ranges.h>
* <__functional/is_transparent.h>
* <__memory/uses_allocator.h>
* <__ranges/drop_view.h>
* <__ranges/transform_view.h>
* <shared_mutex>
* <span>
Also updates header inclusions that were affected.
**NOTE:** This is a proper subset of D105932. Since the content has
already been LGTM'd, I intend to merge this patch without review,
pending green CI. I decided it would be better to move these changes
into their own commit since the former patch has undergone further
changes and will need yet another light review. In the event any of
that gets rolled back (for whatever reason), the changes in this patch
won't be affected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106040
Joe Loser