`<coroutine>` seems to be new enough to not be a huge problem.
Reviewed By: Mordante, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits, ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140600
The test uses `size_t` but does not include a header defining it. Include
`<cstddef>` which provides `size_t`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D141284
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This reverts commit 6542cb55a3eb115b1c3592514590a19987ffc498.
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better to
reword the diagnostic to be more like GCC and say “static assertion”
failed in both C and C++.
consider a c file having code
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
In clang the output is like:
<source>:1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
^ ~
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1
Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better to
reword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gcc
prints as:
<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!"
1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiler returned: 1
The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewording
the static_assert to static assertion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
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 avoids using an libc++ internal macro in our tests. This version
doesn't depend on the internal macro but redefines it.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119460
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
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
This is needed when running the tests in Freestanding mode, where main()
isn't treated specially. In Freestanding, main() doesn't get mangled as
extern "C", so whatever runtime we're using fails to find the entry point.
One way to solve this problem is to define a symbol alias from __Z4mainiPPc
to _main, however this requires all definitions of main() to have the same
mangling. Hence this commit.
C++98 and C++03 are effectively aliases as far as Clang is concerned.
As such, allowing both std=c++98 and std=c++03 as Lit parameters is
just slightly confusing, but provides no value. It's similar to allowing
both std=c++17 and std=c++1z, which we don't do.
This was discovered because we had an internal bot that ran the test
suite under both c++98 AND c++03 -- one of which is redundant.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80926
