As suggested in D117966.
These conditional noexcepts are *permitted* by the Standard (as long
as there were no mistakes in them, I guess); but not *mandated*.
The Standard doesn't put any noexcept-specifications on these member functions.
The same logic would apply to `transform_view::iterator::operator*`
and `transform_view::iterator::operator[]`, but the Standard mandates
conditional noexcept on `iter_move(transform_view::iterator)`, and
I think it doesn't make much sense to say "moving from this iterator
is conditionally noexcept but not-moving from it is noexcept(false),"
so I'm leaving transform_view alone for now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119374
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
Despite the comment saying `[[no_unique_address]]` on the `__base_` data member
makes clang crash, this does not seem to be true on CI. So, mark `__base_` with
`_LIBCPP_NO_UNIQUE_ADDRESS`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119208
- add some test cases for `cbegin`/`cend`;
- make class definitions generally follow the order in which they are
used;
- add a missing include.
Reviewed By: philnik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119214
var-const points out that `ranges::begin` is (non-normatively
but explicitly) always supposed to return a `std::input_or_output_iterator`,
and `Incomplete*` is not a `std::input_or_output_iterator` because it
has no `operator++`. Therefore, we should never return `Incomplete*`
from `ranges::begin(x)`, even when `x` is `Incomplete(&)[]`. Instead,
just SFINAE away.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118963
Discovered in the comments on D118748: we would like this namespace
to exist anytime Ranges exists, regardless of whether concepts syntax
is supported. Also, we'd like to fully granularize the <ranges> header,
which means not putting any loose declarations at the top level.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118809
Per Discord discussion, we're normalizing on a simple `!defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS)`
so that we can do a big search-and-replace for `!defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS)`
back into `_LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17` when we're ready to abandon support for concept-syntax-less
compilers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118748
With this patch there should be no more namespaces without closing comment
Reviewed By: ldionne, Quuxplusone, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118668
Each "Nothing To Do" issue only changed nits in the English wording,
not anything to do with the code.
Each "Complete" issue was completed already, as far as I can tell.
I tried to err on the side of caution: I didn't mark a few issues
whose P/Rs were very invasive and would take time to verify, and I
didn't mark a lot of issues involving features we haven't even started
yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117960
The macro that opts out of `std::ranges::` functionality is called
`_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_INCOMPLETE_RANGES`, and is unrelated to this macro
which is specifically about _compiler_ support for the _syntax_.
The only non-mechanical diff here is in `<__config>`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118507
Fixed in counted_iterator and transform_view::iterator.
The LWG issue also affected elements_view::iterator, but we haven't
implemented that one yet, and whoever does implement it will get
the fix for free if they just follow the working draft's wording.
Drive-by stop calling `.base()` on test iterators in the test,
and improve the transform_view::iterator/sentinel tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117329
Implement LWG3549 by making `view_interface` not inherit from `view_base`. Types
are still views if they have a public and unambiguous derivation from
`view_interface`, so adjust the `enable_view` machinery as such to account for
that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117714
Also remove some bogus `std::forward`s. My impression is that these
forwards were actually harmless, because `ranges::begin(FWD(t))` is
always identical to `ranges::begin(t)` (except when it's ill-formed,
and that can't happen in this case). However, they're also superfluous
and don't reflect the wording in the standard, so let's eliminate them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117043
The NFC part of D116809. We still want to enforce this in CI,
but the mechanism for that is still to-be-determined.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116809
For example, `std::ranges::range<Holder<Incomplete>*>` should be
well-formed false, not a hard error at compile time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116239
The big change here is that they now work as intended for rvalues,
e.g. `ranges::cbegin(std::string_view("hello"))`.
Also, add tests verifying their return types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116199
It was missing the cast to `bool` in `bool(__t.empty())`.
It was wrongly using `std::forward` in some places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115312
These headers have stabilized; we don't expect anyone to be
blindly clang-formatting them anymore.
Leave the comments in `__format/*.h` for Mark to remove at his leisure.
Clang is gaining `auto(x)` support in D113393; sadly there
seems to be no feature-test macro for it. Zhihao is opening
a core issue for that macro.
Use `_LIBCPP_AUTO_CAST` where C++20 specifies we should use `auto(x)`;
stop using `__decay_copy(x)` in those places.
In fact, remove `__decay_copy` entirely. As of C++20, it's purely
a paper specification tool signifying "Return just `x`, but it was
perfect-forwarded, so we understand you're going to have to call
its move-constructor sometimes." I believe there's no reason we'd
ever need to do its operation explicitly in code.
This heisenbugs away a test failure on MinGW; see D112214.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115686
As discussed with ldionne. The problem with this static_assert
is that it makes ranges::begin a pitfall for anyone ever to use
inside a constraint or decltype. Many Ranges things, such as ranges::size,
are specified as "Does X if X is well-formed, or else Y if Y is well-formed,
or else `ranges::end(t) - ranges::begin(t)` if that is well-formed, or else..."
And if there's a static_assert hidden inside `ranges::begin(t)`, then you get
a hard error as soon as you ask the question -- even if the answer would have
been "no, that's not well-formed"!
Constraining on `requires { t + 0; }` or `requires { t + N; }` is verboten
because of https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103700 . For ranges::begin,
we can just decay to a pointer even in the incomplete-type case. For ranges::end,
we can safely constrain on `sizeof(*t)`. Yes, this means that an array of incomplete
type has a `ranges::begin` but no `ranges::end`... just like an unbounded array of
complete type. This is a valid manifestation of IFNDR.
All of the new libcxx/test/std/ cases are mandatory behavior, as far as I'm aware.
Tests for the IFNDR cases in ranges::begin and ranges::end remain in `libcxx/test/libcxx/`.
The similar tests for ranges::empty and ranges::data were simply wrong, AFAIK.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115838
Before this patch, the new test's `CountedInvocable<int*, int*>`
would hard-error instead of SFINAEing and cleanly returning false.
Notice that views::counted specifically does NOT work with pipes;
`counted(42)` is ill-formed. This is because `counted`'s first argument
is supposed to be an iterator, not a range.
Also, mark `views::counted(it, n)` as [[nodiscard]], and test that.
(We have a general policy now that range adaptors are consistently
marked [[nodiscard]], so that people don't accidentally think that
they have side effects. This matters mostly for `reverse` and
`transform`, arguably `drop`, and just generally let's be consistent.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115177
Clang trunk rejects the new test case, but this is a Clang bug
(PR47414, 47509, 50864, 44833).
```
In module 'std' imported from /Users/aodwyer/llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.transform/general.pass.cpp:17:
/Users/aodwyer/llvm-project/build2/include/c++/v1/__ranges/transform_view.h:85:44: error: constraints not satisfied for alias template 'range_reference_t' [with _Rp = const NonConstView]
regular_invocable<const _Fn&, range_reference_t<const _View>>
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/Users/aodwyer/llvm-project/build2/include/c++/v1/__ranges/transform_view.h:416:25: note: in instantiation of template class 'std::ranges::transform_view<NonConstView, (lambda at /Users/aodwyer/llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.transform/general.pass.cpp:73:71)>' requested here
-> decltype( transform_view(_VSTD::forward<_Range>(__range), _VSTD::forward<_Fn>(__f)))
^
```
We can work around this by adding a layer of indirection: put the
problematic constraint into a named concept and Clang becomes more
amenable to SFINAE'ing instead of hard-erroring.
Drive-by simplify `range.transform/general.pass.cpp` to make it clearer
what it's actually testing in this area.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115116
We've stopped doing it in libc++ for a while now because these names
would end up rotting as we move things around and copy/paste stuff.
This cleans up all the existing files so as to stop the spreading
as people copy-paste headers around.
Some types that inherit from `view_interface` do not meet the
preconditions. This came up during discussion
in https://reviews.llvm.org/D112631. Currently, the behavior is IFNDR,
but the preconditions can be easily checked, so let's do so.
In particular, we know each public member function calls the
`__derived()` private function, so we can do the check there. We
intentionally do it as a `static_assert` instead of a `requires` clause
to avoid hard erroring in some cases, such as with incomplete types. An
example hard error is:
```
llvm-project/build/include/c++/v1/__ranges/view_interface.h:48:14: note: because 'sizeof(_Tp)' would be invalid: invalid application of 'sizeof' to an incomplete type 'MoveOnlyForwardRange'
requires { sizeof(_Tp); } &&
^
llvm-project/build/include/c++/v1/__ranges/view_interface.h:73:26: error: no matching member function for call to '__derived'
return ranges::begin(__derived()) == ranges::end(__derived());
^~~~~~~~~
llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.utility/view.interface/view.interface.pass.cpp:187:31: note: in instantiation of function template specialization 'std::ranges::view_interface<MoveOnlyForwardRange>::empty<Mov
eOnlyForwardRange>' requested here
assert(!std::move(moveOnly).empty());
```
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, Mordante, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112665
The existing tests for transform_view::iterator weren't quite right,
and can be simplified now that we have more of C++20 available to us.
Having done that, let's use the same pattern for iota_view::iterator
as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110774
Instead of using a base class to store the members and the optional
size, use [[no_unique_address]] to achieve the same thing without
needing a base class.
Also, as a fly-by:
- Change subrange from struct to class (per the standard)
- Improve the diagnostic for when one doesn't provide a size to the ctor of a sized subrange
- Replace this->member by just member since it's not in a dependent base anymore
This change would be an ABI break due to [[no_unique_address]], but we
haven't shipped ranges anywhere yet, so this shouldn't affect anyone.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110370
These are specced as `inline constexpr auto`; the extra `const`
isn't doing anything except being inconsistent with the other CPOs.
Now all the implemented CPOs can be detected by
git grep 'inline constexpr auto.*fn' ../libcxx/include/
and I think that's beautiful.
Those constructors are very easy to misuse -- one could easily think that
the size passed to the constructor is the size of the range to exhibit
from the subrange. Instead, it's a size hint and it's UB to get it wrong.
Hence, when it's cheap to compute the real size of the range, it's cheap
to make sure that the user didn't get it wrong.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108827
We don't use double underscores for private header names when they are
in a subdirectory with double underscores already.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108820
Arthur O'Dwyer