We originally put implementation-detail function objects into individual
namespaces for `std::ranges` without a good reason for doing so. This
practice was continued, presumably because there was prior art. Since
there's no reason to keep these namespaces, this commit removes them,
which will slightly impact binary size.
This commit does not apply to CPOs, some of which need additional work.
We recently noticed that the unwrap_iter.h file was pushing macros, but
it was pushing them again instead of popping them at the end of the
file. This led to libc++ basically swallowing any custom definition of
these macros in user code:
#define min HELLO
#include <algorithm>
// min is not HELLO anymore, it's not defined
While investigating this issue, I noticed that our push/pop pragmas were
actually entirely wrong too. Indeed, instead of pushing macros like
`move`, we'd push `move(int, int)` in the pragma, which is not a valid
macro name. As a result, we would not actually push macros like `move`
-- instead we'd simply undefine them. This led to the following code not
working:
#define move HELLO
#include <algorithm>
// move is not HELLO anymore
Fixing the pragma push/pop incantations led to a cascade of issues
because we use identifiers like `move` in a large number of places, and
all of these headers would now need to do the push/pop dance.
This patch fixes all these issues. First, it adds a check that we don't
swallow important names like min, max, move or refresh as explained
above. This is done by augmenting the existing
system_reserved_names.gen.py test to also check that the macros are what
we expect after including each header.
Second, it fixes the push/pop pragmas to work properly and adds missing
pragmas to all the files I could detect a failure in via the newly added
test.
rdar://121365472
Introduce a new `argument-within-domain` category that covers cases
where the given arguments make it impossible to produce a correct result
(or create a valid object in case of constructors). While the incorrect
result doesn't create an immediate problem within the library (like e.g.
a null pointer dereference would), it always indicates a logic error in
user code and is highly likely to lead to a bug in the program once the
value is used.
Replace most uses of `_LIBCPP_ASSERT` with
`_LIBCPP_ASSERT_UNCATEGORIZED`.
This is done as a prerequisite to introducing hardened mode to libc++.
The idea is to make enabling assertions an opt-in with (somewhat)
fine-grained controls over which categories of assertions are enabled.
The vast majority of assertions are currently uncategorized; the new
macro will allow turning on `_LIBCPP_ASSERT` (the underlying mechanism
for all kinds of assertions) without enabling all the uncategorized
assertions (in the future; this patch preserves the current behavior).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153816
This commit does a pass of clang-format over files in libc++ that
don't require major changes to conform to our style guide, or for
which we're not overly concerned about conflicting with in-flight
patches or hindering the git blame.
This roughly covers:
- benchmarks
- range algorithms
- concepts
- type traits
I did a manual verification of all the changes, and in particular I
applied clang-format on/off annotations in a few places where the
result was less readable after than before. This was not necessary
in a lot of places, however I did find that clang-format had pretty
bad taste when it comes to formatting concepts.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153140
This change is almost fully mechanical. The only interesting change is in `generate_feature_test_macro_components.py` to generate `_LIBCPP_STD_VER >=` instead. To avoid churn in the git-blame this commit should be added to the `.git-blame-ignore-revs` once committed.
Reviewed By: ldionne, var-const, #libc
Spies: jloser, libcxx-commits, arichardson, arphaman, wenlei
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143962
This mirrors what we have done in the classic algorithms
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D137186
When we ship LLVM 16, <ranges> won't be considered experimental anymore.
We might as well do this sooner rather than later.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132151
