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
As discovered in D117817, `std::ranges::input_range<Holder<Incomplete>*[10]>`
hard-errored before this patch. That's because `input_range` requires
`iter_rvalue_reference_t`, which requires `iter_move`, which was
not ADL-proofed.
Add ADL-proofing tests to all the range refinements.
`output_range` and `common_range` shouldn't be affected,
and all the others subsume `input_range` anyway, but we might as
well be thorough.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118213
This includes an experimental workaround for
LWG3664 "LWG3392 broke std::ranges::distance(a, a+3)",
but the workaround may be incomplete, I'm not sure.
This should be re-audited when LWG3664 is actually adopted,
to see if we need to change anything about our implementation.
See also https://github.com/microsoft/STL/pull/2500
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117940
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
In `ranges::advance(iter, n, bound)`, we'd incorrectly handle the case
where bound < iter and n is 0:
int a[10];
int *p = a+5;
int *bound = a+3;
std::ranges::advance(p, 0, bound);
assert(p - a == 5); // we'd return 3 before this patch
This was caused by an incorrect handling of 0 inside __magnitude_geq.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117240
We were missing a constraint in common_iterator's iterator_traits and
we were eagerly instantiating iter_value_t even when invalid.
Thanks to Casey Carter for finding this bug.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117449
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
As prefigured in the comments on D115315.
This gives us one unified style for all niebloids,
and also simplifies the modulemap.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116570
This essentially reverts e02ed1c255 and puts in a new fix, which makes `path::iterator`
a true C++20 `bidirectional_iterator`, but downgrades it to an `input_iterator` in C++17.
Fixes#37852.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116489
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
The reason for those nested namespaces is explained in D115315:
> AIUI, this keeps the CPO's own type from ADL'ing into the `std::ranges`
> namespace; e.g. `foobar(std::ranges::uninitialized_default_construct)`
> should not consider `std::ranges::foobar` a candidate, even if
> `std::ranges::foobar` is not a CPO itself. Also, of course, consistency
> (Chesterton's Fence, the economist's hundred-dollar bill): if it were
> safe to omit the namespace, we'd certainly want to do it everywhere,
> not just here.
This makes these three niebloids more consistent with the other Ranges
niebloids we've already implemented, such as the `ranges::begin` group
and the `ranges::uninitialized_default_construct` group.
FWIW, we still have three different indentation-and-comment styles
among these three groups.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116569
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.
Defined in [`specialized.algorithms`](wg21.link/specialized.algorithms).
Also:
- refactor the existing non-range implementation so that most of it
can be shared between the range-based and non-range-based algorithms;
- remove an existing test for the non-range version of
`uninitialized_default_construct{,_n}` that likely triggered undefined
behavior (it read the values of built-ins after default-initializing
them, essentially reading uninitialized memory).
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115315
`__wrap_iter` is currently only constexpr if it's not a debug built, but it isn't used in a constexpr context currently. Making it always constexpr and disabling the debugging utilities at constant evaluation is more usful since it has to be always constexpr to be used in a constexpr context.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114733
This patch implements operator<=> for std::reverse_iterator and
also adds a test that checks that three-way comparison of different
instantiations of std::reverse_iterator works as expected (related to
D113417).
Reviewed By: ldionne, Quuxplusone, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113695
The template std::is_assignable<T, U> checks that T is assignable from
U. Hence, the order of operands in the instantiation of
std::is_assignable in the std::reverse_iterator::operator= condition
should be reversed.
This issue remained unnoticed because std::reverse_iterator has an
implicit conversion constructor. This patch adds a test to check that
the assignment operator is used directly, without any implicit
conversions. The patch also adds a similar test for
std::move_iterator.
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, ldionne, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113417
This addresses the usage of `operator&` in `<vector>`.
I now added tests for the current offending cases. I wonder whether it
would be better to add one addressof test per directory and test all
possible violations. Also to guard against possible future errors?
(Note there are still more headers with the same issue.)
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111961
Instead of overloading `__to_address`, let's specialize `pointer_traits`.
Function overloads need to be in scope at the point where they're called,
whereas template specializations do not. (User code can provide pointer_traits
specializations to be used by already-included library code, so obviously
`__wrap_iter` can do the same.)
`pointer_traits<__wrap_iter<It>>` cannot provide `pointer_to`, because
you generally cannot create a `__wrap_iter` without also knowing the
identity of the container into which you're trying to create an iterator.
I believe this is OK; contiguous iterators are required to provide
`to_address` but *not* necessarily `pointer_to`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110198
In other places in the code, we use lowercase spelling for things that
are not available in prior standards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109435
The `insert_iterator::iter` member is defined as `Container::iterator` but
the standard requires `iter` to be defined in terms of `ranges::iterator_t` as
of C++20. So, if in C++20 or later, define the `iter` member as
`ranges::iterator_t`.
Original patch by Joe Loser!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108575
`contiguous_iterator` requires the iterator type passed is either a
pointer type or that the element type of the iterator is a complete
object type. These constraints are not part of the current wording in
defining the `contiguous_iterator` concept - adjust the concept to
reflect this.
Inspired from discussion at https://reviews.llvm.org/D108645.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108855
This must have been meant to be friend-declaring operator!=, but it
turns out that it's not even necessary to make it a friend since it
does not access any private state.
rdar://82568613
All supported compilers have supported deduction guides in C++17 for a
while, so this isn't necessary anymore.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108213
Feedback requested in D106735 applied in Diff 3 seem to have
reverted in Diff 4. This patch fixes that up.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106829
See LWG reflector thread of 2021-07-23 titled
'Question on ranges::advance and "past-the-sentinel iterators"'.
Test case heavily based on one graciously provided by Casey Carter.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106735
Arthur O'Dwyer