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 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
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
This reverts commit 276ca873. That commit has quite a history at this
point. It was first landed in dbc647643577, which broke std::shared_ptr<T const>
and was reverted in 9138666f5. It was then re-applied in 276ca873, with
the std::shared_ptr issue fixed, but it caused widespread breakage at
Google (which suggests it would cause similar breakage in the wild too),
so now I'm reverting again.
Instead, I will add a escape hatch that vendors can turn on to enable
the extension and perform a phased transition over one or two releases
like we sometimes do when things become non-trivial.
This extension is a portability trap for users, since no other standard
library supports it. Furthermore, the Standard explicitly allows
implementations to reject std::allocator<cv T>, so allowing it is
really going against the current.
This was discovered in D120684: this extension required `const_cast`ing
in `__construct_range_forward`, a fishy bit of code that can be removed
if we don't support the extension anymore.
This is a re-application of dbc647643577, which was reverted in 9138666f5
because it broke std::shared_ptr<T const>. Tests have now been added and
we've made sure that std::shared_ptr<T const> wouldn't be broken in this
version.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120996
This extension is a portability trap for users, since no other standard
library supports it. Furthermore, the Standard explicitly allows
implementations to reject std::allocator<cv T>, so allowing it is
really going against the current.
This was discovered in D120684: this extension required `const_cast`ing
in `__construct_range_forward`, a fishy bit of code that can be removed
if we don't support the extension anymore.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120996
Also:
- refactor out `__voidify`;
- use the `destroy` algorithm internally;
- refactor out helper classes used in tests for `uninitialized_*`
algorithms.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115626
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
Implement the exposition-only concepts specified in
`[special.mem.concepts]`. These are all thin wrappers over other
concepts.
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114761
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.
Also fix a few places in the `shared_ptr` implementation where
`element_type` was passed to the `__is_compatible` helper. This could
result in `remove_extent` being applied twice to the pointer's template
type (first by the definition of `element_type` and then by the helper),
potentially leading to somewhat less readable error messages for some
incorrect code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112092
While the std::allocator<void> specialization was deprecated by
https://wg21.link/p0174#2.2, the *use* of std::allocator<void> by users
was not. The intent was that std::allocator<void> could still be used
in C++17 and C++20, but starting with C++20 (with the removal of the
specialization), std::allocator<void> would use the primary template.
That intent was called out in wg21.link/p0619r4#3.9.
As a result of this patch, _LIBCPP_ENABLE_CXX20_REMOVED_ALLOCATOR_MEMBERS
will also not control whether the explicit specialization is provided or
not. It shouldn't matter, since in C++20, one can simply use the primary
template.
Fixes http://llvm.org/PR50299
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104323
Make sure we provide the correct It::difference_type member and update
the tests and synopses to be accurate.
Supersedes D102657 and D103101 (thanks to the original authors).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103273
C++17 deprecated std::iterator and removed it as a base class for all
iterator adaptors. We implement that change, but we still provide a way
to inherit from std::iterator in the few cases where doing otherwise
would be an ABI break.
Supersedes D101729 and the std::iterator base parts of D103101 and D102657.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103171
This patch gets rid of technical debt around std::pointer_safety which,
I claim, is entirely unnecessary. I don't think anybody has used
std::pointer_safety in actual code because we do not implement the
underlying garbage collection support. In fact, P2186 even proposes
removing these facilities entirely from a future C++ version. As such,
I think it's entirely fine to get rid of complex workarounds whose goals
were to avoid breaking the ABI back in 2017.
I'm putting this up both to get reviews and to discuss this proposal for
a breaking change. I think we should be comfortable with making these
tiny breaks if we are confident they won't hurt anyone, which I'm fairly
confident is the case here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100410
This makes it clear that headers like <memory> which include auto_ptr
only do that when compiling under an older Standard, or when the removed
feature is explicitly requested.
Nikolas Klauser