- P1252 ("Ranges Design Cleanup") -- deprecate
`move_iterator::operator->` starting from C++20; add range comparisons
to the `<functional>` synopsis. This restores
`move_iterator::operator->` that was incorrectly deleted in D117656;
it's still defined in the latest draft, see
http://eel.is/c++draft/depr.move.iter.elem. Note that changes to
`*_result` types from 6.1 in the paper are no longer relevant now that
these types are aliases;
- P2106 ("Alternative wording for GB315 and GB316") -- add a few
`*_result` types to the synopsis in `<algorithm>` (some algorithms are
not implemented yet and thus some of the proposal still cannot be
marked as done);
Also mark already done issues as done (or as nothing to do):
- P2091 ("Fixing Issues With Range Access CPOs") was already implemented
(this patch adds tests for some ill-formed cases);
- LWG 3247 ("`ranges::iter_move` should perform ADL-only lookup of
`iter_move`") was already implemented;
- LWG 3300 ("Non-array ssize overload is underconstrained") doesn't
affect the implementation;
- LWG 3335 ("Resolve C++20 NB comments US 273 and GB 274") was already
implemented;
- LWG 3355 ("The memory algorithms should support move-only input
iterators introduced by P1207") was already implemented (except for
testing).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126053
Also, improve the test for nasty macros to define min and max, so this
will be caught in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128655
For an lvalue reference to a move only view x, views::all(x) gives hard error because the expression inside noexcept is not well formed and it is not SFINAE friendly.
Given a move only view type `V`, and a concept
```
template <class R>
concept can_all = requires {
std::views::all(std::declval<R>());
};
```
The expression `can_all<V&>` returns
libstdc++: false
msvc stl : false
libc++ : error: static_cast from 'V' to 'typename decay<decltype((std::forward<V &>(__t)))>::type' (aka 'V') uses deleted function
noexcept(noexcept(_LIBCPP_AUTO_CAST(std::forward<_Tp>(__t))))
The standard spec has its own problem, the spec says it is expression equivalent to `decay-copy(E)` but the spec of `decay-copy` does not have any constraint, which means the expression `decay-copy(declval<V&>())` is well-formed and the concept `can_all<V&>` should return true and should error when instantiating the function body of decay-copy. This is clearly wrong behaviour in the spec and we will probably create an LWG issue. But the libc++'s behaviour is clearly not correct. The `noexcept` is an "extension" in libc++ which is not in the spec, but the expression inside `noexpect` triggers hard error, which is not right.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne, var-const
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128281
This only adds the customization point object (which isn't pipeable),
the view itself has already been implemented previously.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124978
- add zip_view and views::zip for C++23
- added unit tests
- implemented section 5.6 (zip) in P2321R2
I used clang-format to format the files but they look nothing like the rest of the code base. Manually indenting each line to match the styles sounds like an impossible task. Is there any clang-format file which can format it reasonable similar to the rest of the code base so that I can manually format the rest lines that look weird?
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, philnik, var-const
Spies: Mordante, philnik, libcxx-commits, mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122806
- added views::join adaptor object
- added test for the adaptor object
- fixed some join_view's tests. e.g iter_swap test
- added some negative tests for join_view to test that operations do not exist when constraints aren't met
- added tests that locks down issues that were already addressed in previous change
- LWG3500 `join_view::iterator::operator->()` is bogus
- LWG3313 `join_view::iterator::operator--` is incorrectly constrained
- LWG3517 `join_view::iterator`'s `iter_swap` is underconstrained
- P2328R1 join_view should join all views of ranges
- fixed some issues in join_view and added tests
- LWG3535 `join_view::iterator::iterator_category` and `::iterator_concept` lie
- LWG3474 Nesting ``join_views`` is broken because of CTAD
- added tests for an LWG issue that isn't resolved in the standard yet, but the previous code has workaround.
- LWG3569 Inner iterator not default_initializable
Reviewed By: #libc, var-const
Spies: var-const, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123466
Note that this class was called just `split_view` in the original One
Ranges Proposal and was renamed to `lazy_split_view` by
[P2210](https://wg21.link/p2210).
Co-authored-by: zoecarver <z.zoelec2@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107500
[libc++] add global variable template std::views::empty
Note it is neither a range adaptor, nor a CPO. It is simplify a global variable template.
Reviewed By: #libc, Mordante
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122996
All supported compilers that support C++20 now support concepts. So, remove
`_LIB_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS` in favor of `_LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17`. Similarly in
the tests, remove `// UNSUPPORTED: libcpp-no-concepts`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121528
Zero-sized types are a GCC extension, also supported by Clang.
In theory it's already invalid to `delete` a void pointer or a
pointer-to-incomplete, so we shouldn't need any special code
to catch those cases; but in practice Clang accepts both
constructs with just a warning, and GCC even accepts `sizeof(void)`
with just a warning! So we must keep the static_asserts.
The hard errors are tested in `unique_ptr_dltr_dflt/*.compile.fail.cpp`.
In ranges::begin/end, check `sizeof >= 0` instead of `sizeof != 0`,
so as to permit zero-sized types while still disallowing incomplete
types.
Fixes#54100.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120633
This commit reverts 5aaefa51 (and also partly 7f285f48e7 and b6d75682f9,
which were related to the original commit). As landed, 5aaefa51 had
unintended consequences on some downstream bots and didn't have proper
coverage upstream due to a few subtle things. Implementing this is
something we should do in libc++, however we'll first need to address
a few issues listed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D106124#3349710.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120683
libc++ has started splicing standard library headers into much more
fine-grained content for maintainability. It's very likely that outdated
and naive tooling (some of which is outside of LLVM's scope) will
suggest users include things such as <__ranges/access.h> instead of
<ranges>, and Hyrum's law suggests that users will eventually begin to
rely on this without the help of tooling. As such, this commit
intends to protect users from themselves, by making it a hard error for
anyone outside of the standard library to include libc++ detail headers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106124
This is the first step towards disentangling the debug mode and assertions
in libc++. This patch doesn't make any functional change: it simply moves
_LIBCPP_ASSERT-related stuff to its own file so as to make it clear that
libc++ assertions and the debug mode are different things. Future patches
will make it possible to enable assertions without enabling the debug
mode.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119769
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
Nikolas Klauser