We currently call a lot of functions with the same list of types. To avoid forgetting any of them, this patch adds type_lists and utilities for it. Specifically, it adds
- `type_list` - This is just a list of types
- `concatenate` - This allows concatenating type_lists
- `for_each` - Iterate over a type_list
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: jloser, EricWF, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D137476
Instead of using `reverse_iterator`, share the optimization between the 4 algorithms. The key observation here that `memmove` applies to both `copy` and `move` identically, and to their `_backward` versions very similarly. All algorithms now follow the same pattern along the lines of:
```
if constexpr (can_memmove<InIter, OutIter>) {
memmove(first, last, out);
} else {
naive_implementation(first, last, out);
}
```
A follow-up will delete `unconstrained_reverse_iterator`.
This patch removes duplication and divergence between `std::copy`, `std::move` and `std::move_backward`. It also improves testing:
- the test for whether the optimization is used only applied to `std::copy` and, more importantly, was essentially a no-op because it would still pass if the optimization was not used;
- there were no tests to make sure the optimization is not used when the effect would be visible.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130695
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
The return value for both of these algorithms is specified as
```
`{last, result - N}` for the overloads in namespace `ranges`.
```
But the current implementation instead returns `{first, result - N}`.
Also add both algorithms to the relevant "robust" tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130968
This adds a C++20-version of `reverse_iterator` which doesn't SFINAE away the operators for use inside the classic STL algorithms. Pre-C++20 `_AlgRevIter` is just an alias for `reverse_iterator`.
Reviewed By: var-const, #libc
Spies: huixie90, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128864
It is meant to be used in ranges algorithm tests.
It is much simplified version of C++23's tuple + zip_view.
Using std::swap would cause compilation failure and using `std::move` would not create the correct rvalue proxy which would result in copies.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129099
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
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
- Quality-of-implementation: Avoid calling __unwrap_iter in constexpr contexts.
The user might conceivably write a contiguous iterator where normal iterator
arithmetic is constexpr-friendly but `std::to_address(it)` isn't.
- Bugfix: When you pass contiguous iterators to `std::copy`, you should get
back your contiguous iterator type, not a raw pointer. That means that
libc++ can't `__unwrap_iter` unless it also does `__rewrap_iter`.
Fortunately, this is implementable.
- Improve test coverage of the new `contiguous_iterator` test iterator.
This catches the bug described above.
- Tests: Stop testing that we can `std::copy` //into// an `input_iterator`.
Our test iterators may currently support that, but it seems nonsensical to me.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95983
Zoe Carver says: "We decided that libc++ only supports C++20 constexpr algorithms
when `is_constant_evaluated` is also supported. Here's a link to the discussion."
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65721#inline-735682
Remove _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED from tests, too.
See Louis's 5911e6a885 if needed to fix bots.
I've applied `UNSUPPORTED: clang-8` preemptively to the altered tests;
I don't know for sure that this was needed, because no clang-8 buildbots
are triggered on pull requests.
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:
The requirement on the `Size` type passed to *_n algorithms is that it is convertible to an integral type. This means we can't use a variable of type `Size` directly. Instead we need to convert it to an integral type first. The problem is finding out what integral type to convert it to. `__convert_to_integral` figures out what integral type to convert it to and performs the conversion, It also promotes the resulting integral type so that it is at least as big as an integer. `__convert_to_integral` also has a special case for converting enums. This should only work on non-scoped enumerations because it does not apply an explicit conversion from the enum to its underlying type.
Reviewers: chandlerc, mclow.lists
Reviewed By: mclow.lists
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7449
llvm-svn: 228704
Nikolas Klauser