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:
std::tuple marks its constructors as noexcept when the corresponding
memberwise constructors are noexcept too -- this commit improves std::pair
so that it behaves the same.
This is a re-application of r348824, which broke the build in C++03 mode
because a test was marked as supported in C++03 when it shouldn't be.
Note:
I did not add support in the explicit and non-explicit `pair(_Tuple&& __p)`
constructors because those are non-standard extensions, and supporting them
properly is tedious (we have to copy the rvalue-referenceness of the deduced
_Tuple&& onto the result of tuple_element).
<rdar://problem/29537079>
Reviewers: mclow.lists, EricWF
Subscribers: christof, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48669
llvm-svn: 348847
Summary:
std::tuple marks its constructors as noexcept when the corresponding
memberwise constructors are noexcept too -- this commit improves std::pair
so that it behaves the same.
Note:
I did not add support in the explicit and non-explicit `pair(_Tuple&& __p)`
constructors because those are non-standard extensions, and supporting them
properly is tedious (we have to copy the rvalue-referenceness of the deduced
_Tuple&& onto the result of tuple_element).
<rdar://problem/29537079>
Reviewers: mclow.lists, EricWF
Subscribers: christof, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48669
llvm-svn: 348824
MSVC emits "warning C4244: 'initializing': conversion from 'int'
to 'short', possible loss of data" when it sees pair<Whatever, short>
constructed from (whatever, 4), because int is being truncated to
short within pair's constructor. (The compiler doesn't take into
account the fact that 4 is a literal at the callsite; it generates
this warning when the constructor is instantiated, because it might
be called with a runtime-valued int that would actually truncate.)
Instead of static_cast<short>, we can simply change short to int
in these tests, without affecting the pair operations that they're
trying to test: move assignment, convert copy construction, and
convert move construction.
Fixes D45016.
llvm-svn: 329973
Libc++ implements the pair& operator=(pair<U, V>) assignment operator
using a single template that handles assignment from all tuple-like types.
This patch moves the test for that to the libcxx test directory since
it's non-standard. It also adds additional tests to the std/.../pair
directory to test the standard behavior this template implements.
llvm-svn: 328758
test/std/strings/string.classes/typedefs.pass.cpp
Actually test what basic_string's typedefs stand for.
test/std/utilities/meta/meta.trans/meta.trans.other/result_of11.pass.cpp
NotDerived and ND were completely unused.
test/std/utilities/utility/pairs/pairs.pair/default.pass.cpp
P2 was mistakenly not being used. Yes, that's
right: -Wunused-local-typedef CAUGHT A MISTAKE! AMAZING!
Fixes D29137.
llvm-svn: 294156
Pending LIT changes are about to remove the REQUIRES-ANY keyword
in place of supporting boolean && and || within "REQUIRES". This
patch prepares libc++ for that change so that when applied
the bots don't lose their mind.
llvm-svn: 292901
test/std/input.output/iostream.format/input.streams/istream.unformatted/get.pass.cpp
Add static_cast<char> because basic_istream::get() returns int_type (N4606 27.7.2.3 [istream.unformatted]/4).
test/std/input.output/iostream.format/output.streams/ostream.formatted/ostream.inserters.arithmetic/minus1.pass.cpp
Add static_cast<char> because toupper() returns int (C11 7.4.2.2/1).
test/std/iterators/stream.iterators/ostream.iterator/ostream.iterator.ops/assign_t.pass.cpp
This test is intentionally writing doubles to ostream_iterator<int>.
It's silencing -Wliteral-conversion for Clang, so I'm adding C4244 silencing for MSVC.
test/std/language.support/support.limits/limits/numeric.limits.members/infinity.pass.cpp
Given `extern float zero;`, the expression `1./zero` has type double, which emits a truncation warning
when being passed to test<float>() taking float. The fix is to say `1.f/zero` which has type float.
test/std/numerics/complex.number/cmplx.over/arg.pass.cpp
test/std/numerics/complex.number/cmplx.over/norm.pass.cpp
These tests were constructing std::complex<double>(x, 0), emitting truncation warnings when x is long long.
Saying static_cast<double>(x) avoids this.
test/std/numerics/rand/rand.eng/rand.eng.lcong/seed_result_type.pass.cpp
This was using `int s` to construct and seed a linear_congruential_engine<T, stuff>, where T is
unsigned short/unsigned int/unsigned long/unsigned long long. That emits a truncation warning in the
unsigned short case. Because the range [0, 20) is tiny and we aren't doing anything else with the index,
we can just iterate with `T s`.
test/std/re/re.traits/value.pass.cpp
regex_traits<wchar_t>::value()'s first parameter is wchar_t (N4606 28.7 [re.traits]/13). This loop is
using int to iterate through ['g', 0xFFFF), emitting a truncation warning from int to wchar_t
(which is 16-bit for some of us). Because the bound is exclusive, we can just iterate with wchar_t.
test/std/strings/basic.string/string.cons/size_char_alloc.pass.cpp
This test is a little strange. It's trying to verify that basic_string's (InIt, InIt) range constructor
isn't confused by "N copies of C" when N and C have the same integral type. To do this, it was
testing (100, 65), but that eventually emits truncation warnings from int to char. There's a simple way
to avoid this - passing (static_cast<char>(100), static_cast<char>(65)) also exercises the disambiguation.
(And 100 is representable even when char has a signed range.)
test/std/strings/string.view/string.view.hash/string_view.pass.cpp
Add static_cast<char_type> because `'0' + i` has type int.
test/std/utilities/function.objects/bind/func.bind/func.bind.bind/nested.pass.cpp
What's more horrible than nested bind()? pow() overloads! This operator()(T a, T b) was assuming that
std::pow(a, b) can be returned as T. (In this case, T is int.) However, N4606 26.9.1 [cmath.syn]/2
says that pow(int, int) returns double, so this was truncating double to int.
Adding static_cast<T> silences this.
test/std/utilities/function.objects/unord.hash/integral.pass.cpp
This was iterating `for (int i = 0; i <= 5; ++i)` and constructing `T t(i);` but that's truncating
when T is short. (And super truncating when T is bool.) Adding static_cast<T> silences this.
test/std/utilities/utility/exchange/exchange.pass.cpp
First, this was exchanging 67.2 into an int, but that's inherently truncating.
Changing this to static_cast<short>(67) avoids the truncation while preserving the
"what if T and U are different" test coverage.
Second, this was exchanging {} with the explicit type float into an int, and that's also
inherently truncating. Specifying short is just as good.
test/std/utilities/utility/pairs/pairs.spec/make_pair.pass.cpp
Add static_cast<short>. Note that this affects template argument deduction for make_pair(),
better fulfilling the test's intent. For example, this was saying
`typedef std::pair<int, short> P1; P1 p1 = std::make_pair(3, 4);` but that was asking
make_pair() to return pair<int, int>, which was then being converted to pair<int, short>.
(pair's converting constructors are tested elsewhere.)
Now, std::make_pair(3, static_cast<short>(4)) actually returns pair<int, short>.
(There's still a conversion from pair<nullptr_t, short> to pair<unique_ptr<int>, short>.)
Fixes D27544.
llvm-svn: 289111
This replaces every occurrence of _LIBCPP_STD_VER in the tests with
TEST_STD_VER. Additionally, for every affected
file, #include "test_macros.h" is being added explicitly if it wasn't
already there.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26294
llvm-svn: 286007
Summary:
On FreeBSD, for ABI compatibility reasons, the pair trivial copy
constructor is disabled, using the aptly-named
`_LIBCPP_DEPRECATED_ABI_DISABLE_PAIR_TRIVIAL_COPY_CTOR` define.
Disable the related tests when this define is on, so they don't fail
unexpectedly.
Reviewers: emaste, rsmith, theraven, EricWF
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25449
llvm-svn: 284047
This assignment operator was previously broken since the SFINAE always resulted
in substitution failure. This caused assignments to turn into
copy construction + assignment.
This patch was originally committed as r279953 but was reverted due to warnings
in the test-suite. This new patch corrects those warnings.
llvm-svn: 279955
This assignment operator was previously broken since the SFINAE always resulted
in substitution failure. This caused assignments to turn into
copy construction + assignment.
llvm-svn: 279953
This is a breaking change. The SFINAE required is instantiated the second
the class is instantiated, and this can cause hard SFINAE errors
when applied to references to incomplete types. Ex.
struct IncompleteType;
extern IncompleteType it;
std::tuple<IncompleteType&> t(it); // SFINAE will blow up.
llvm-svn: 276598
In C++03 mode evaluating the SFINAE can cause a hard error due to
access control violations. This is a problem because the SFINAE
is evaluated as soon as the class is instantiated, and not later.
llvm-svn: 276594
Quite a few libcxx tests seem to follow the format:
#if _LIBCPP_STD_VER > X
// Do test.
#else
// Empty test.
#endif
We should instead use the UNSUPPORTED lit directive to exclude the test on
earlier C++ standards. This gives us a more accurate number of test passes
for those standards and avoids unnecessary conflicts with other lit
directives on the same tests.
Reviewers: bcraig, ericwf, mclow.lists
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20730
llvm-svn: 271108
Summary:
There is no reason to guard `tuple_size`, `tuple_element` and `get<I>(...)` for pair and array inside of `<__tuple>` so that they are only available when we have variadic templates.
This requires there be redundant declarations and definitions. It also makes it easy to get things wrong.
For example the following code should compile (and does in c++11).
```
#define _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_VARIADICS
#include <array>
int main()
{
static_assert((std::tuple_size<std::array<int, 10> volatile>::value == 10), "");
}
```
This patch lifts the non-variadic parts of `tuple_size`, `tuple_types`, and `get<I>(...)` to the top of `<__tuple>` where they don't require variadic templates. This patch also removes `<__tuple_03>` because there is no longer a need for it.
Reviewers: danalbert, K-ballo, mclow.lists
Reviewed By: mclow.lists
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7774
llvm-svn: 232492
Marshall Clow