Only the [cmp.alg] part (for `comparison_meow_fallback` CPOs) in the
paper required changes. Other parts merely fixed preconditions of some
standard library functions.
I strongly feel that P2167R3 should be a DR despite that it is not a DR
officially: CPOs -> C++20; remain parts -> C++98/11 (except that
_`boolean-testable`_ should be transformed into the original
_BooleanTestable_ requirements in the old resolution of LWG2114).
Note that P2167R3 damaged the resolution of LWG3465: the type of `F < E`
was left underconstrained. I've tried to submit an LWG issue for this,
which is now LWG4157.
Drive-by change:
- enable some test coverages in `compare_strong_order_fallback.pass.cpp`
when `TEST_LONG_DOUBLE_IS_DOUBLE`, following up #106742Closes#105241.
This patch runs clang-format on all of libcxx/include and libcxx/src, in
accordance with the RFC discussed at [1]. Follow-up patches will format
the benchmarks, the test suite and remaining parts of the code. I'm
splitting this one into its own patch so the diff is a bit easier to
review.
This patch was generated with:
find libcxx/include libcxx/src -type f \
| grep -v 'module.modulemap.in' \
| grep -v 'CMakeLists.txt' \
| grep -v 'README.txt' \
| grep -v 'libcxx.imp' \
| grep -v '__config_site.in' \
| xargs clang-format -i
A Git merge driver is available in libcxx/utils/clang-format-merge-driver.sh
to help resolve merge and rebase issues across these formatting changes.
[1]: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-clang-formatting-all-of-libc-once-and-for-all
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
All supported compilers that support C++20 now support concepts. So, remove
`_LIB_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS` in favor of `_LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17`. Similarly in
the tests, remove `// UNSUPPORTED: libcpp-no-concepts`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121528
This commit reverts 5aaefa51 (and also partly 7f285f48e77 and b6d75682f9,
which were related to the original commit). As landed, 5aaefa51 had
unintended consequences on some downstream bots and didn't have proper
coverage upstream due to a few subtle things. Implementing this is
something we should do in libc++, however we'll first need to address
a few issues listed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D106124#3349710.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120683
libc++ has started splicing standard library headers into much more
fine-grained content for maintainability. It's very likely that outdated
and naive tooling (some of which is outside of LLVM's scope) will
suggest users include things such as <__ranges/access.h> instead of
<ranges>, and Hyrum's law suggests that users will eventually begin to
rely on this without the help of tooling. As such, this commit
intends to protect users from themselves, by making it a hard error for
anyone outside of the standard library to include libc++ detail headers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106124
Per Discord discussion, we're normalizing on a simple `!defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS)`
so that we can do a big search-and-replace for `!defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS)`
back into `_LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17` when we're ready to abandon support for concept-syntax-less
compilers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118748
The tests for these are just copy-pasted from the tests for std::{strong,weak,partial}_order,
and then I added an extra clause in each (test_2()) to test the stuff that's not just the same
as std::*_order.
This also includes the fix for https://wg21.link/LWG3465 (which falls naturally out of the
"you must write it three times" style, but I've added test cases for it also).
There is an action item here to go back and give good diagnostics for SFINAE failures
in these CPOs. I've filed this as https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53456 .
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111514
