Instead of using a base class to store the members and the optional
size, use [[no_unique_address]] to achieve the same thing without
needing a base class.
Also, as a fly-by:
- Change subrange from struct to class (per the standard)
- Improve the diagnostic for when one doesn't provide a size to the ctor of a sized subrange
- Replace this->member by just member since it's not in a dependent base anymore
This change would be an ABI break due to [[no_unique_address]], but we
haven't shipped ranges anywhere yet, so this shouldn't affect anyone.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110370
Those constructors are very easy to misuse -- one could easily think that
the size passed to the constructor is the size of the range to exhibit
from the subrange. Instead, it's a size hint and it's UB to get it wrong.
Hence, when it's cheap to compute the real size of the range, it's cheap
to make sure that the user didn't get it wrong.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108827
The `get` half of this machinery was already implemented, but the `tuple_size`
and `tuple_element` parts were hiding in [ranges.syn] and therefore missed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108054
We've been forgetting to add those to most of the <ranges> review.
To avoid forgetting in the future, I added an item in the pre-commit
checklist.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106287
A few slipped through the cracks because D104175 and D104170 didn't
concern themselves with newer commits.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104414
Arthur O'Dwyer