As described in #69994, using the escape hatch makes us non-conforming
in C++20 due to incorrect constexpr-ness. It also leads to bad
diagnostics as reported by #63900. We discussed the issue in the libc++
monthly meeting and we agreed that we should deprecate the macro in LLVM
18, and then remove it in LLVM 19 since it causes too many problems.
This patch does the first part of this -- it deprecates the macro.
Fixes#69994Fixes#63900
Partially addresses #75975
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
In preparation for running clang-format on the whole code base, we are
also removing mentions of the legacy _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY macro in
favor of the newer _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI.
We're still leaving the definition of _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY to avoid
creating needless breakage in case some older patches are checked-in
with mentions of the old macro. After we branch for LLVM 18, we can do
another pass to clean up remaining uses of the macro that might have
gotten introduced by mistake (if any) and remove the macro itself at the
same time. This is just a minor convenience to smooth out the transition
as much as possible.
See
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-clang-formatting-all-of-libc-once-and-for-all
for the clang-format proposal.
Implements parts of P1614R2:
- Removed global `operator!=` from `allocator`
Reviewed By: #libc, Mordante
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D152612
We already have a clang-tidy check for making sure that `_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI` is on free functions. This patch extends this to class members. The places where we don't check for `_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI` are classes for which we have an instantiation in the library.
Reviewed By: ldionne, Mordante, #libc
Spies: jplehr, mikhail.ramalho, sstefan1, libcxx-commits, krytarowski, miyuki, smeenai
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D142332
This patch also updates the moved code to the new style (i.e. formatted, replaced marcos and typedefs)
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Spies: arichardson, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D145095
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 was discussed on Discord with the consensus that we should rename the macros.
Reviewed By: ldionne, Mordante, var-const, avogelsgesang, jloser, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131498
When compiled with `-D_LIBCPP_ENABLE_CXX20_REMOVED_ALLOCATOR_MEMBERS`
uses of `allocator<void>::pointer` resulted in compiler errors after D104323.
If we instantiate the primary template, `allocator<void>::reference` produces
an error 'cannot form references to void'.
To workaround this, allow to bring back the `allocator<void>` specialization by defining the new `_LIBCPP_ENABLE_CXX20_REMOVED_ALLOCATOR_VOID_SPECIALIZATION` macro.
To make sure the code that uses `allocator<void>` and the removed members does not break,
both `_LIBCPP_ENABLE_CXX20_REMOVED_ALLOCATOR_MEMBERS` and `_LIBCPP_ENABLE_CXX20_REMOVED_ALLOCATOR_MEMBERS` have to be defined.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, philnik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126210
This reverts commit 276ca873. That commit has quite a history at this
point. It was first landed in dbc647643577, which broke std::shared_ptr<T const>
and was reverted in 9138666f5. It was then re-applied in 276ca873, with
the std::shared_ptr issue fixed, but it caused widespread breakage at
Google (which suggests it would cause similar breakage in the wild too),
so now I'm reverting again.
Instead, I will add a escape hatch that vendors can turn on to enable
the extension and perform a phased transition over one or two releases
like we sometimes do when things become non-trivial.
This extension is a portability trap for users, since no other standard
library supports it. Furthermore, the Standard explicitly allows
implementations to reject std::allocator<cv T>, so allowing it is
really going against the current.
This was discovered in D120684: this extension required `const_cast`ing
in `__construct_range_forward`, a fishy bit of code that can be removed
if we don't support the extension anymore.
This is a re-application of dbc647643577, which was reverted in 9138666f5
because it broke std::shared_ptr<T const>. Tests have now been added and
we've made sure that std::shared_ptr<T const> wouldn't be broken in this
version.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120996
This extension is a portability trap for users, since no other standard
library supports it. Furthermore, the Standard explicitly allows
implementations to reject std::allocator<cv T>, so allowing it is
really going against the current.
This was discovered in D120684: this extension required `const_cast`ing
in `__construct_range_forward`, a fishy bit of code that can be removed
if we don't support the extension anymore.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120996
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
clang has `= default` as an extension in c++03, so just use it.
Reviewed By: ldionne, Quuxplusone, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115275
Currently the member functions std::allocator<T>::allocate,
std::experimental::pmr::polymorphic_allocator::allocate and
std::resource_adaptor<T>::do_allocate throw an exception of type
std::length_error when the requested size exceeds the maximum size.
According to the C++ standard ([allocator.members]/4,
[mem.poly.allocator.mem]/1), std::allocator<T>::allocate and
std::pmr::polymorphic_allocator::allocate must throw a
std::bad_array_new_length exception in this case.
The patch fixes the issue with std::allocator<T>::allocate and changes
the type the exception thrown by
std::experimental::pmr::resource_adaptor<T>::do_allocate to
std::bad_array_new_length as well for consistency.
The patch resolves LWG 3237, LWG 3038 and LWG 3190.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, Quuxplusone
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110846
LWG 2447 is marked as `Complete`, but there is no `static_assert` to
reject volatile types in `std::allocator`. See the discussion at
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108856.
Add `static_assert` in `std::allocator` to disallow volatile types. Since this
is an implementation choice, mark the binding test as `libc++` only.
Remove tests that use containers backed by `std::allocator` that test
the container when used with a volatile type.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109056
Moves:
* `std::move`, `std::forward`, `std::declval`, and `std::swap` into
`__utility/${FUNCTION_NAME}`.
* `std::swap_ranges` and `std::iter_swap` into
`__algorithm/${FUNCTION_NAME}`
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103734
When we removed the allocator<void> specialization, the triviality of
std::allocator<void> changed because the primary template had a
non-trivial default constructor and the specialization didn't
(so std::allocator<void> went from trivial to non-trivial).
This commit fixes that oversight by giving a trivial constructor to
the primary template when instantiated on cv-void.
This was reported in https://llvm.org/PR50299.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104398
While the std::allocator<void> specialization was deprecated by
https://wg21.link/p0174#2.2, the *use* of std::allocator<void> by users
was not. The intent was that std::allocator<void> could still be used
in C++17 and C++20, but starting with C++20 (with the removal of the
specialization), std::allocator<void> would use the primary template.
That intent was called out in wg21.link/p0619r4#3.9.
As a result of this patch, _LIBCPP_ENABLE_CXX20_REMOVED_ALLOCATOR_MEMBERS
will also not control whether the explicit specialization is provided or
not. It shouldn't matter, since in C++20, one can simply use the primary
template.
Fixes http://llvm.org/PR50299
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104323
Most of our private headers need to be treated as submodules so that
Clang modules can export things correctly. Previous commits that split
monolithic headers into smaller chunks were unaware of this requirement,
and so this is being addressed in one fell swoop. Moving forward, most
new headers will need to have their own submodule (anything that's
conditionally included is exempt from this rule, which means `__support`
headers aren't made into submodules).
This hasn't been marked NFC, since I'm not 100% sure that's the case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103551
