For some reason `operator""s(const char8_t*, size_t)` was marked `noexcept`. Remove it and add regression tests.
Reviewed By: ldionne, huixie90, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132340
Many tests in `libcxx/test/std/strings` use
`#if defined(__cpp_lib_char8_t) && __cpp_lib_char8_t >= 201811L`
which can be replaced with the more terse `#ifndef TEST_HAS_NO_CHAR8_T`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132626
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
While implementing `operator<=>` for `string_view` (D130295) @philnik
pointed out `common_type` should be `type_identity`. Since it was an
existing issue that wasn't addressed.
This addresses the issue for both the new and existing equality and
comparison operators. The test is based on the example posted in
D130295.
Reviewed By: philnik, #libc, huixie90
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131322
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
Display 'static_assert failed: message' instead of
'static_assert failed "message"' to be consistent
with other implementations and be slightly more
readable.
Reviewed By: #libc, aaron.ballman, philnik, Mordante
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128844
This patch switches the build compiler for AIX from ibm-clang to clang. ibm-clang++_r has `-pthread` by default, but clang for AIX doesn't, so `-pthread` had to be added to the test config. A bunch of tests now pass, so the `XFAIL` was removed. This patch also switch the build to use the visibility support available in clang-15 to control symbols exported by the shared library (AIX traditionally uses explicit export lists for this purpose).
Reviewed By: #libc, #libc_abi, daltenty, #libunwind, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127470
`string_view` is supported all the way back to C++03 as an extension in
`libc++`, and so many of the tests run in all standards modes for all vendors.
This is unlikely desired by other standard library vendors using our test suite.
So, disable the tests for vendors other than `libc++` in these older standards
modes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126850
In D122982 I accidentally disabled the memmove optimization. This re-enables it and adds more cases where copy forwards to memmove.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/33687
Reviewed By: var-const, #libc, ldionne
Spies: pkasting, ayzhao, dcheng, xbolva00, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124328
In 6423a9f0ec8ba70049ea76e7bcfc9a9d1a54e826, I accidentally thought this was
getting tested, but these variables are unused. Just remove the lines instead of
leaving them commented out.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126901
Some test cases for `ends_with.ptr.pass` and `starts_with.ptr.pass` for
`string_view` are commented out, but work just fine. Uncomment them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126849
Some tests in `string.view.comparison` are not enabled due to previous lack of
support for `constexpr std::string`. Now that it is implemented, we can enable
these tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126737
Since those features are general properties of the environment, it makes
sense to use them from libc++abi too, and so the name libcpp-has-no-xxx
doesn't make sense.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126482
This makes the code a bit simpler and (I think) removes the undefined behaviour from the normal string layout.
Reviewed By: ldionne, Mordante, #libc
Spies: labath, dblaikie, JDevlieghere, krytarowski, jgorbe, jingham, saugustine, arichardson, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123580
Instead of using `.fail.cpp` tests, use `.verify.cpp` to check for the
exact reason of the failure. In the case of deduction guides, use SFINAE
based tests instead since that is our preferred way of testing those.
Finally, ensure that we actually run the test in `iter_alloc_deduction.pass.cpp`,
since we were not running anything before.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123055
These are the last™ changes to the tests for constexpr preparation.
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, #libc, Mordante
Spies: Mordante, EricWF, libcxx-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120951
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
Fixup tests that believe them to be so. Most notably including some heavy refactoring in `std/iterators/iterator.primitives/iterator.traits/cxx20_iterator_traits.compile.pass.cpp`, which now detects pointers and validates that `iterator_concept` is present only for pointers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117368
We shouldn't be calling `move` via ADL -- and neither should anybody
in the wild be calling it via ADL, so it's not like we need to test
this ADL ability of `move` in particular.
Reviewed as part of D119860.
The logic here is that we are disabling *only* things in `std::ranges::`.
Everything in `std::` is permitted, including `default_sentinel`, `contiguous_iterator`,
`common_iterator`, `projected`, `swappable`, and so on. Then, we include
anything from `std::ranges::` that is required in order to make those things
work: `ranges::swap`, `ranges::swap_ranges`, `input_range`, `ranges::begin`,
`ranges::iter_move`, and so on. But then that's all. Everything else (including
notably all of the "views" and the `std::views` namespace itself) is still
locked up behind `_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_INCOMPLETE_RANGES`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118736
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
Note that most changes to `strings` and `views.span` from the One Ranges
Proposal are no longer applicable:
- free `begin` and `end` functions taking `basic_string_view` and `span`
were removed by [P1870](http://wg21.link/p1870);
- `span::const_iterator` was removed by [LWG3320](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#3320).
Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118687
