Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are defined in
std::experimental namespace.
And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft
like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std
namespace instead of std::experimental namespace.
And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I
think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the
experiment namespace now.
This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace
first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in
std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std
namespace. So the existing codes wouldn't be break after update
compiler.
And in case the compiler found std::coroutine_traits and
std::experimental::coroutine_traits at the same time, it would emit an
error for it.
The support for looking up std::experimental::coroutine_traits would be
removed in Clang16.
Reviewed By: lxfind, Quuxplusone
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
This reverts commit 2fbd254aa4, which broke the libc++ CI. I'm reverting
to get things stable again until we've figured out a way forward.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
Summary: Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are
defined in std::experimental namespace.
And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft
like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std
namespace instead of std::experimental namespace.
And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I
think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the
experiment namespace now.
But move the coroutine component into the std namespace may be an break
change. So I planned to split this change into two patch. One in clang
and other in libcxx.
This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace
first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in
std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std
namespace and emit a warning in this case. So the existing codes
wouldn't be break after update compiler.
Test Plan: check-clang, check-libcxx
Reviewed By: lxfind
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
Summary:
This patch addresses https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46256
The spec of coroutine requires that the expression co_await promise.final_suspend() shall not be potentially-throwing.
To check this, we recursively look at every call (including Call, MemberCall, OperatorCall and Constructor) in all code
generated by the final suspend, and ensure that the callees are declared with noexcept. We also look at any returned data
type that requires explicit destruction, and check their destructors for noexcept.
This patch does not check declarations with dependent types yet, which will be done in future patches.
Updated all tests to add noexcept to the required functions, and added a dedicated test for this patch.
This patch might start to cause existing codebase fail to compile because most people may not have been strict in tagging
all the related functions noexcept.
Reviewers: lewissbaker, modocache, junparser
Reviewed By: modocache
Subscribers: arphaman, junparser, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82029
Summary:
This patch adopts the recent changes that renamed `set_exception(exception_pointer)` to `unhandled_exception()`.
Additionally `unhandled_exception()` is now required, and so an error is emitted when exceptions are enabled but the promise type does not provide the member.
When exceptions are disabled a warning is emitted instead of an error, The warning notes that the `unhandled_exception()` function is required when exceptions are enabled.
Reviewers: rsmith, GorNishanov, aaron.ballman, majnemer
Reviewed By: GorNishanov
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30859
llvm-svn: 298565
Chuanqi Xu