Adding `[[nodiscard]]` to functions is a conforming extension and done extensively in the MSVC STL.
Reviewed By: ldionne, EricWF, #libc
Spies: #libc_vendors, cjdb, mgrang, jloser, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128267
This patch simplifies the implementation of `deque` by removing the `__deque_base` class which results in a lot less indirections and removes the need for `__base::`.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: AdvenamTacet, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132081
When we ship LLVM 16, <ranges> won't be considered experimental anymore.
We might as well do this sooner rather than later.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132151
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This reverts commit 6542cb55a3.
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better to
reword the diagnostic to be more like GCC and say “static assertion”
failed in both C and C++.
consider a c file having code
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
In clang the output is like:
<source>:1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
^ ~
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1
Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better to
reword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gcc
prints as:
<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!"
1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiler returned: 1
The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewording
the static_assert to static assertion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
Display 'static_assert failed: message' instead of
'static_assert failed "message"' to be consistent
with other implementations and be slightly more
readable.
Reviewed By: #libc, aaron.ballman, philnik, Mordante
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128844
Previously, we'd use raw pointers when the debug mode was enabled,
which means we wouldn't get out-of-range checking with std::span's
iterators.
This patch introduces a new class called __bounded_iter which can
be used to wrap iterators and make them carry around bounds-related
information. This allows iterators to assert when they are dereferenced
outside of their bounds.
As a fly-by change, this commit removes the _LIBCPP_ABI_SPAN_POINTER_ITERATORS
knob. Indeed, not using a raw pointer as the iterator type is useful to
avoid users depending on properties of raw pointers in their code.
This is an alternative to D127401.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127418
Since those features are general properties of the environment, it makes
sense to use them from libc++abi too, and so the name libcpp-has-no-xxx
doesn't make sense.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126482
We require move semantics in C++03 anyways, so let's enable them for the containers.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123802
`vector<bool>::const_reference` and `vector<bool>::const_iterator::reference` should be the same type.
Reviewed By: Mordante, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123851
See https://reviews.llvm.org/D121626 for details -- this re-enables the
CTAD we removed, since it does break some stuff as well (even though it's
not nearly as bad as the removed constructors fixed by D121626).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122184
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
Now that we've branched for the LLVM 14 release, our support window
moves to clang-13 and clang-14. Similarly, AppleClang 13 has been
released for some time now, so that should be the oldest compiler
we support, per our policy.
A possible follow-up would be to remove _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS, since
I don't think we support any compiler that doesn't support concepts
anymore.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118831
Using -isystem marks the headers as system headers, which means that we
don't actually get all the warnings that we'd normally get if we included
the headers as user headers.
The goal of the test suite is normally to mirror as closely as possible
how users would use the library. Technically, this change goes against
that philosophy, since users should be using `-isystem` (if they ever
need to specify the libc++ path explicitly, which should be a rare
occurence). However, I believe fishing out additional warnings from
the headers provides more value, hence this change. Ideally, we'd be
able to still use `-isystem`, but instruct Clang to still emit warnings
from the libc++ headers (e.g. we could tell Clang to emit warnings in
any file inside `<...>/usr/include/c++/v1`).
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne, #libc_abi
Spies: Mordante, EricWF, mstorsjo, mgorny, aheejin, arichardson, philnik, jloser, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118616
We shouldn't be calling `prev` via ADL -- and neither should anybody
in the wild be calling it via ADL, so it's not like we need to test
this ADL ability of `prev` in particular.
Reviewed as part of D119860.
We shouldn't be calling `next` via ADL -- and neither should anybody
in the wild be calling it via ADL, so it's not like we need to test
this ADL ability of `next` in particular.
Reviewed as part of D119860.
We shouldn't be calling `distance` via ADL -- and neither should anybody
in the wild be calling it via ADL, so it's not like we need to test
this ADL ability of `distance` in particular.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119685
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
containers
Add test cases for iteration over the ordered associative container from
end to begin using operator--
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, rarutyun
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118114
Note that most changes to `strings` and `views.span` from the One Ranges
Proposal are no longer applicable:
- free `begin` and `end` functions taking `basic_string_view` and `span`
were removed by [P1870](http://wg21.link/p1870);
- `span::const_iterator` was removed by [LWG3320](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#3320).
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118687
Nikolas Klauser