As time went by, a few files have become mis-formatted w.r.t.
clang-format. This was made worse by the fact that formatting was not
being enforced in extensionless headers. This commit simply brings all
of libcxx/include in-line with clang-format again.
We might have to do this from time to time as we update our clang-format
version, but frankly this is really low effort now that we've formatted
everything once.
These headers have become very small by using compiler builtins, often
containing only two declarations. This merges these headers, since
there doesn't seem to be much of a benefit keeping them separate.
Specifically, `is_{,_nothrow,_trivially}{assignable,constructible}` are
kept and the `copy`, `move` and `default` versions of these type traits
are moved in to the respective headers.
Also introduce `_LIBCPP_ASSERT_PEDANTIC` for assertions violating which
results in a no-op or other benign behavior, but which may nevertheless
indicate a bug in the invoking code.
POSIX allows certain macros to exist with generic names (i.e. refresh(), move(), and erase()) to exist in `curses.h` which conflict with functions found in std::filesystem, among others. This patch undefs the macros in question and adds them to LIBCPP_PUSH_MACROS and LIBCPP_POP_MACROS.
Reviewed By: #libc, philnik, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D147356
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
Other macros that disable parts of the library are named `_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_WHATEVER`.
Reviewed By: ldionne, Mordante, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits, smeenai
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143163
Having an ODR violation with `__exception_guard` seems to be problematic in LTO builds. To avoid the ODR violation, give the class different names for exception/no-exceptions mode and have an alias to the correct class.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, alexfh
Spies: aeubanks, dblaikie, joanahalili, alexfh, rupprecht, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143071
__exception_guard is a no-op in -fno-exceptions mode to produce better code-gen. This means that we don't provide the strong exception guarantees. However, Clang doesn't generate cleanup code with exceptions disabled, so even if we wanted to provide the strong exception guarantees we couldn't. This is also only relevant for constructs with a stack of -fexceptions > -fno-exceptions > -fexceptions code, since the exception can't be caught where exceptions are disabled. While -fexceptions > -fno-exceptions is quite common (e.g. libc++.dylib > -fno-exceptions), having another layer with exceptions enabled seems a lot less common, especially one that tries to catch an exception through -fno-exceptions code.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56783
Reviewed By: ldionne, Mordante, huixie90, #libc
Spies: EricWF, alexfh, hans, joanahalili, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133661
