Moves:
* `std::move`, `std::forward`, `std::declval`, and `std::swap` into
`__utility/${FUNCTION_NAME}`.
* `std::swap_ranges` and `std::iter_swap` into
`__algorithm/${FUNCTION_NAME}`
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103734
* `<type_traits>` depends on `std::forward`, so we replaced it with
`static_cast<T&&>`.
* `swap`'s return type is confusing, so it's been rearranged to improve
readabilitiy.
During the review of D97115 it was mentioned adding the `<utility>`
header for `__to_underlying` was a bit unfortunate. Nowadays we tend to
implement smaller headers, so a good reason to move `std::to_underlying`
to its own header and adjust `<charconv>` to use the new header.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101233
These [[nodiscard]] annotations are added as a conforming extension;
it's unclear whether the paper will actually be adopted and make them
mandatory, but they do seem like good ideas regardless.
https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2351R0.pdf
This patch implements the paper's effect on:
- std::to_integer, std::to_underlying
- std::forward, std::move, std::move_if_noexcept
- std::as_const
- std::identity
The paper also affects (but libc++ does not yet have an implementation of):
- std::bit_cast
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99895
As mandated by the Standard's various synopses, e.g. [iterator.synopsis].
Searching the TeX source for '#include' is a good way to find all of these
mandates.
The new tests are all autogenerated by utils/generate_header_inclusion_tests.py.
I was SHOCKED by how many mandates there are, and how many of them
libc++ wasn't conforming with.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99309
Use `_LIBCPP_TEMPLATE_VIS` instead of `_LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS` for a template
class.
This fixes the nodiscard_extensions.pass.cpp and a couple
func.search.default test cases when built in MSVC/DLL configurations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99932
I used a lot of `git grep` to find places where `std::` was being used
outside of comments and assert-messages. There were three outcomes:
- Qualified function calls, e.g. `std::move` becomes `_VSTD::move`.
This is the most common case.
- Typenames that don't need qualification, e.g. `std::allocator` becomes `allocator`.
Leaving these as `_VSTD::allocator` would also be fine, but I decided
that removing the qualification is more consistent with existing practice.
- Names that specifically need un-versioned `std::` qualification,
or that I wasn't sure about. For example, I didn't touch any code in
<atomic>, <math.h>, <new>, or any ext/ or experimental/ headers;
and I didn't touch any instances of `std::type_info`.
In some deduction guides, we were accidentally using `class Alloc = typename std::allocator<T>`,
despite `std::allocator<T>`'s type-ness not being template-dependent.
Because `std::allocator` is a qualified name, this did parse as we intended;
but what we meant was simply `class Alloc = allocator<T>`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92250
x86-64 ILP32 mode (x32) uses 32-bit size_t, so share the code with ix86 to zero out padding bits, not with x86-64 LP64 mode.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91349
Summary:
LWG2510 makes tag types like allocator_arg_t explicitly default
constructible instead of implicitly default constructible. It also
makes the constructors for std::pair and std::tuple conditionally
explicit based on the explicit-ness of the default constructibility
for the pair/tuple's elements.
This was previously committed as r372777 and reverted in r372832 due to
the commit breaking LLVM's build in C++14 mode. This issue has now been
addressed.
Reviewers: mclow.lists
Subscribers: christof, jkorous, dexonsmith, libcxx-commits
Tags: #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65161
llvm-svn: 372983
This also reverts:
- r372778: [libc++] Implement LWG 3158
- r372782: [libc++] Try fixing tests that fail on GCC 5 and older
- r372787: Purge mentions of GCC 4 from the test suite
Reason: the change breaks compilation of LLVM with libc++, for details see
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/libcxx-dev/2019-September/000599.html
llvm-svn: 372832
Summary:
LWG2510 makes tag types like allocator_arg_t explicitly default
constructible instead of implicitly default constructible. It also
makes the constructors for std::pair and std::tuple conditionally
explicit based on the explicit-ness of the default constructibility
for the pair/tuple's elements.
Reviewers: mclow.lists, EricWF
Subscribers: christof, jkorous, dexonsmith, libcxx-commits
Tags: #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65161
llvm-svn: 372777
The constructors for std::pair and std::tuple have been made conditionally
explicit, however the synopsis in the headers do not reflect that.
llvm-svn: 366735
When applied to a typedef or alias template, the [[nodebug]] attribute
makes the typedef transparent to the debugger, so instead of seeing
`std::__function::__alloc_func<remove_reference<void(&)()>::type,
allocator<remove_reference<void(&)()>, void()>::_Target` you see
`void(&)()` as the type of the variable in your debugger.
Removing all this SFINAE noise from debug info has huge binary size
wins, in addition to improving the readability.
For now this change is on by default. Users can override it by
specifying -D_LIBCPP_NODEBUG_TYPE=
llvm-svn: 363117
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:
FreeBSD ships a very old and deprecated ABI for std::pair where the copy and move constructors are not allowed to be trivial. D25389 change how this was implemented by introducing a non-trivial base class. This patch, introduced in October 2016, introduced an ABI bug that caused nested `std::pair` instantiations to have padding. For example:
```
using PairT = std::pair< std::pair<char, char>, char >;
static_assert(offsetof(PairT, first) == 0, "First member should exist at offset zero"); // Fails on FreeBSD!
```
The bug occurs because the base class for the first element (the nested pair) cannot be put at offset zero because the top-level pair already has the same base class laid out there.
This patch fixes that ABI bug by templating the dummy base class on the same parameters as the pair.
Technically this fix is an ABI break for users who depend on the "broken" ABI introduced in 2016. I'm putting this up for review so that the FreeBSD maintainers can sign off on fixing the ABI by breaking the ABI.
Another option, since we have to "break" the ABI to fix it, would be to move FreeBSD off the deprecated non-trivial pair ABI instead.
Also see:
* https://llvm.org/PR40230
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D21329
Reviewers: rsmith, dim, emaste
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: mclow.lists, krytarowski, christof, ldionne, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56357
llvm-svn: 351290
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
Summary:
This was voted into C++20 in San Diego. Note that there was a revision
D0318R2 which did include unwrap_reference_t, but we mistakingly voted
P0318R1 into the C++20 Working Draft (which does not include
unwrap_reference_t). This patch implements D0318R2, which is what
we'll end up with in the Working Draft once this mistake has been
fixed.
Reviewers: EricWF, mclow.lists
Subscribers: christof, dexonsmith, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54485
llvm-svn: 348138
Summary:
When building with -fvisibility=hidden, some symbols do not get exported from
libc++.dylib. This means that some entities are not explicitly given default
visibility in the source code, and that we rely on the fact -fvisibility=default
is the default. This commit explicitly gives default visibility to those
symbols to avoid being dependent on the command line flags used.
The commit also remove symbols from the dylib -- those symbols do not
actually need to be exported from the dylib and this should not be an
ABI break.
Finally, in the future, we may want to mark the whole std:: namespace as
having hidden visibility (to switch from opt-out to opt-in), in which
case the changes done in this commit will be required.
Reviewers: EricWF
Subscribers: mgorny, christof, dexonsmith, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52662
llvm-svn: 345260
Summary:
It is part of the synopsis in the Standard and <utility> does include it,
but it was left out of the synopsis comment.
Reviewers: EricWF, mclow.lists
Subscribers: christof, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48611
llvm-svn: 336368
Christopher Di Bella