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
This does not include `std::compare_*_fallback`; those are coming later.
There's still an open question of how to implement std::strong_order
for `long double`, which has 80 value bits and 48 padding bits on x86-64,
and which is presumably *not* IEEE 754-compliant on PPC64 and so on.
So that part is left unimplemented.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110738
Some of these were previously half-implemented in "ordering.h";
now they're all implemented, and tested.
Note that `constexpr` functions are implicitly `inline`, so the
standard wording omits `inline` on these; but Louis and I agree
that that's surprising and it's better to be explicit about it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110515
There's really no reason to even have two different enums here,
but *definitely* we shouldn't have *three*, and they don't need
so many synonymous enumerator values.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110516
Implements parts of P1614, including synth-three-way and three way comparison for std::pair.
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, Mordante
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107721
Also, as a fly-by fix, use `inline` directly to define inline variables
(all compilers support it).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110208
Implementation of `three_way_comparable` and `three_way_comparable_with` concepts from <compare> header.
Please note that I have temporarily removed `<compare>` header from `<utility>` due to cyclic dependency that prevents using `<concepts>` header in `<compare>` one.
I tried to quickly resolve those issues including applying suggestions from @cjdb and dive deeper by myself but the problem seems more complicated that we thought initially.
I am in progress to prepare the patch with resolving this cyclic dependency between headers but for now I decided to put all that I have to the review to unblock people that depend on that functionality. At first glance the patch with resolving cyclic dependency is not so small (unless I find the way to make it smaller and cleaner) so I don't want to mix everything to one review.
Reviewed By: ldionne, cjdb, #libc, Quuxplusone
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103478
Arthur O'Dwyer