Evaluating `contiguous_iterator` on an iterator that satisfies all the
constraints except the `to_address` constraint and doesn't have
`operator->` defined results in a hard error. This is because
instantiating `to_address` ends up instantiating templates
dependent on the given type which might lead to a hard error even
in a SFINAE context.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130835
This iterator is used to test code that only needs to satisfy the
output_iterator concept. Follow-up changes will use this iterator in
older language Standards.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, philnik, var-const
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122072
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
The renames the output_iterator to cpp17_output_iterator. These
iterators are still used in C++20 so it's not possible to change the
current type to the new C++20 requirements. This is done in a similar
fashion as the cpp17_input_iterator.
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117950
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.
`contiguous_iterator` requires the iterator type passed is either a
pointer type or that the element type of the iterator is a complete
object type. These constraints are not part of the current wording in
defining the `contiguous_iterator` concept - adjust the concept to
reflect this.
Inspired from discussion at https://reviews.llvm.org/D108645.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108855
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
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
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