This commit re-adds transitive includes that had been removed by
4cd04d1687, c36870c8e7, a83f4b9cda, 1458458b55, 2e2f3158c6,
and 489637e66d. This should cover almost all the includes that had
been removed since LLVM 14 and that would contribute to breaking user
code when releasing LLVM 15.
It is possible to disable the inclusion of these headers by defining
_LIBCPP_REMOVE_TRANSITIVE_INCLUDES. The intent is that vendors will
enable that macro and start fixing downstream issues immediately. We
can then remove the macro (and the transitive includes) by default in
a future release. That way, we will break users only once by removing
transitive includes in bulk instead of doing it bit by bit a every
release, which is more disruptive for users.
Note 1: The set of headers to re-add was found by re-generating the
transitive include test on a checkout of release/14.x, which
provided the list of all transitive includes we used to provide.
Note 2: Several includes of <vector>, <optional>, <array> and <unordered_map>
have been added in this commit. These transitive inclusions were
added when we implemented boyer_moore_searcher in <functional>.
Note 3: This is a best effort patch to try and resolve downstream breakage
caused since branching LLVM 14. I wasn't able to perfectly mirror
transitive includes in LLVM 14 for a few headers, so I added a
release note explaining it. To summarize, adding boyer_moore_searcher
created a bunch of circular dependencies, so we have to break
backwards compatibility in a few cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128661
This is a follow up based on a request of @jloser in D127594.
As drive-by qualified the function calls in the <bit> header.
Reviewed By: #libc, EricWF
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127760
All supported compilers have concepts support so use that in the C++20
functions in <bit>.
s/_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY/_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI/ as drive-by fix.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127594
This patch changes the requirement for getting the declaration of the
assertion handler from including <__assert> to including any public
C++ header of the library. Note that C compatibility headers are
excluded because we don't implement all the C headers ourselves --
some of them are taken straight from the C library, like assert.h.
It also adds a generated test to check it. Furthermore, this new
generated test is designed in a way that will make it possible to
replace almost all the existing test-generation scripts with this
system in upcoming patches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122506
Fixes LWG3656, "Inconsistent bit operations returning a count".
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3656
The fix has been approved for C++23 and left to vendors' discretion
in C++20 (but it sounds like everyone's on the same page that
of course it should be DR'ed back to C++20 too).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120444
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
We've stopped doing it in libc++ for a while now because these names
would end up rotting as we move things around and copy/paste stuff.
This cleans up all the existing files so as to stop the spreading
as people copy-paste headers around.
I just ran into a compiler error involving __bind_back and some overloads
that were being disabled with _EnableIf. I noticed that the error message
was quite bad and did not mention the reason for the overload being
excluded. Specifically, the error looked like this:
candidate template ignored: substitution failure [with _Args =
<ContiguousView>]: no member named '_EnableIfImpl' in 'std::_MetaBase<false>'
Instead, when using enable_if or enable_if_t, the compiler is clever and
can produce better diagnostics, like so:
candidate template ignored: requirement 'is_invocable_v<
std::__bind_back_op<1, std::integer_sequence<unsigned long, 0>>,
std::ranges::views::__transform::__fn &, std::tuple<PlusOne> &,
ContiguousView>' was not satisfied [with _Args = <ContiguousView>]
Basically, it tries to do a poor man's implementation of concepts, which
is already a lot better than simply complaining about substitution failure.
Hence, this commit uses enable_if_t instead of _EnableIf whenever
possible. That is both more straightforward than using the internal
helper, and also leads to better error messages in those cases.
I understand the motivation for _EnableIf's implementation was to improve
compile-time performance, however I believe striving to improve error
messages is even more important for our QOI, hence this patch. Furthermore,
it is unclear that _EnableIf actually improved compile-time performance
in any noticeable way (see discussion in the review for details).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108216
Fix __bitop_unsigned_integer and rename to __libcpp_is_unsigned_integer.
There are only five unsigned integer types, so we should just list them out.
Also provide `__libcpp_is_signed_integer`, even though the Standard doesn't
consume that trait anywhere yet.
Notice that `concept uniform_random_bit_generator` is specifically specified
to rely on `concept unsigned_integral` and *not* `__is_unsigned_integer`.
Instantiating `std::ranges::sample` with a type `U` satisfying
`uniform_random_bit_generator` where `unsigned_integral<U::result_type>`
and not `__is_unsigned_integer<U::result_type>` is simply IFNDR.
Orthogonally, fix an undefined behavior in std::countr_zero(__uint128_t).
Orthogonally, improve tests for the <bit> manipulation functions.
It was these new tests that detected the bug in countr_zero.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102328
We do ship those headers, so the directory name should not be something
that can potentially conflict with user-defined directories.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95956
It has the low-level bit fiddling operations from bit. It eliminates a cyclic dependency between __bit_reference, bits, and vector. I want to exploit this in later patches.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94908
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
Implements P1956: On the names of low-level bit manipulation functions.
Users may use older versions of libc++ or other standard libraries with the old names. In order to keep compatibility the old functions are kept, but marked as deprecated.
The patch also adds a new config macro `_LIBCPP_DEPRECATED_MSG`. Do you prefer a this is a separate patch?
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90551
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
Louis Dionne