During the discussion on the SG-10 mailinglist regarding the format
feature-test macros voted in during the last plenary it turns out libc++
can't mark the format feature-test macro as implemented.
According to
https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test-recommendations#__cpp_lib_format
the not yet implemented paper
P1361R2 Integration of chrono with text formatting
affects the feature test macro.
Note that P1361R2 doesn't mention the feature-test macro nor is there an
LWG-issue to address the issue. The reporter of the issue didn't recall
where this requirement exactly has been decided.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133271
D131234 marked the ranges papers as complete, but it didn't set the
feature-test macro.
Reviewed By: ldionne, var-const, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131326
The macro is only enabled when the Clang is used with
-fexperimental-library.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130792
`__GCC_CONSTRUCTIVE_SIZE` and `__GCC_DESTRUCTIVE_SIZE` are available since GCC 12. I'm assuming clang will also implement these for compatability with libstdc++.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: h-vetinari, libcxx-commits, arichardson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122276
This mostly copys the `<experimental/functional>` stuff and updates the code to current libc++ style.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: nlopes, adamdebreceni, arichardson, libcxx-commits, mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121074
P0798R8 "Monadic operations for std::optional" has been implemented, so
this LWG issue can be adopted.
During review it was discovered another paper bumped the macro. The
part affecting optional of this paper is done, the variant isn't. The
status page is updated to reflect the current state.
Implements
- LWG 3621 Remove feature-test macro __cpp_lib_monadic_optional
Updates status of
- P2231R1 Missing constexpr in std::optional and std::variant
Reviewed By: #libc, philnik, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125813
This supersedes and incoroporates content from both D108906 and D54966,
and also some original content.
Co-Authored-by: Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-by: Gonzalo Brito Gadeschi
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118938
This patch implements P0674R1, i.e. support for arrays in std::make_shared
and std::allocate_shared.
Co-authored-by: Zoe Carver <z.zoelec2@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62641
`__cpp_lib_type_identity` was implemented way back in cf49ccd0 (Clang 8),
probably before the feature-test macro had been settled on.
`__cpp_lib_string_resize_and_overwrite` will be added by D113013 so I didn't add it here.
Fixes#46605.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116433
Since coroutine is merged in C++ standard and the support for coroutine
seems relatively stable. It's the time to move the implementation of
coroutine out of the experimental directory and the std::experimental
namespace. This patch creates header <coroutine> with conformed
implementation with C++ standard. To avoid breaking user's code too
fast, the <experimental/coroutine> header is remained. Note that
<experimental/coroutine> is deprecated and it would be removed in
LLVM15.
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109433
`utils/generate_feature_test_macro_components.py` uses the wrong
indentation. `:name: feature-status-table :widths: auto` is rendered as
text instead of being used by Sphinx to render the table properly.
This fixes the identation in the souce and updates the generated output.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112251
This patch changes the variant even in pre-C++2b.
It should not break anything, only allow use cases that didn't work previously.
Notes:
`__as_variant` is used in `__visitation::__variant::__visit_alt`, but I haven't used it in `__visitation::__variant::__visit_alt_at`.
That's because it is used only in `__visit_value_at`, which in turn is always used on variant specializations (that's in comparison operators).
* https://wg21.link/P2162
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, Quuxplusone
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97394
This is the first step at implementing <format>. It adds the <format> header
and implements the `format_error`. class.
Implemnts parts of:
-P0645 Text Formatting
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, miscco, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92214
I accidentally disabled this feature-test macro in my D93830,
due to a rebasing conflict. It had been enabled by my D93815,
and should have remained enabled.
It's still a little confusing because in many cases C++17 and C++20
have different values, and libc++ implements the C++17 behavior but
not the C++20 behavior; 'unimplemented' can't represent that scenario.
Ultimately we probably ought to completely redesign the script to be
in terms of paper numbers, rather than language revisions, and make
it generate the CSV files like "Cxx2aStatusPaperStatus.csv" as well.
Most newly added macros are unimplemented. I've marked a few as implemented,
though, based on my reading of the code; for example I was pretty sure
`__cpp_lib_latch` is implemented since we have `<latch>`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93830
* The only exception is that the flag -std=c++2a is still used not to break compatibility with older compilers (clang <= 9, gcc <= 9).
* Bump _LIBCPP_STD_VER for C++20 to 20 and use 21 for the future standard (C++2b).
That's a preparation step to add c++2b support to libc++.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93383
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
Mark de Wever