There is no reason for the parts of std::span that don't depend on ranges
to be disabled when ranges aren't provided. Also, to make sure the
"no-experimental-stuff" configuration is tested, add a CI job for it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118740
Even if these comments have a benefit in .h files (for editors that
care about language but can't be configured to treat .h as C++ code),
they certainly have no benefit for files with the .cpp extension.
Discussed in D110794.
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 static asserts in span<T, N>::front() and span<T, N>::back() are
incorrect as they may be triggered from valid code due to evaluation
of a never taken branch:
span<int, 0> foo;
if (!foo.empty()) {
auto x = foo.front();
}
The problem is that the branch is always evaluated by the compiler,
creating invalid compile errors for span<T, 0>.
Thanks to Michael Schellenberger Costa for the patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71995
Louis Dionne