8 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Louis Dionne
368faacac7 [libc++] Revert "Protect users from relying on detail headers" & related changes
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
2022-03-01 08:20:24 -05:00
Christopher Di Bella
5aaefa510e [libcxx][modules] protects users from relying on detail headers
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 It's very likely that outdated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
2022-02-26 09:00:25 +00:00
Arthur O'Dwyer
ea2206d70d [libc++] Replace includes of <utility> with specific detail headers
Basically a rebase of D104980; most of that patch had already happened
via gradual drive-by changes, but this finishes it up.
Don't touch the inclusions from `<__functional_base>`, `<__hash_table>`,
or `<__locale>`; those could be removed if we propagated the
inclusions up to the includers of those files, but there are lots
of those includers.

`<algorithm>`, `<functional>`, and `<memory>` already include `<utility>`
at the top level. `<iterator>` did not, so I've added it there.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119020
2022-02-04 17:08:32 -05:00
Arthur O'Dwyer
fa6b9e4010 [libc++] Normalize all our '#pragma GCC system_header', and regression-test.
Now we'll notice if a header forgets to include this magic phrase.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118800
2022-02-04 12:27:19 -05:00
Arthur O'Dwyer
4d81a46f7f [libc++] Alphabetize header #includes. NFCI.
The NFC part of D116809. We still want to enforce this in CI,
but the mechanism for that is still to-be-determined.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116809
2022-01-10 16:30:38 -05:00
Louis Dionne
4e0ea2cf2e [libc++] Use enable_if_t instead of _EnableIf
I just ran into a compiler error involving __bind_back and some overloads
that were being disabled with _EnableIf. I noticed that the error message
was quite bad and did not mention the reason for the overload being
excluded. Specifically, the error looked like this:

     candidate template ignored: substitution failure [with _Args =
     <ContiguousView>]: no member named '_EnableIfImpl' in 'std::_MetaBase<false>'

Instead, when using enable_if or enable_if_t, the compiler is clever and
can produce better diagnostics, like so:

     candidate template ignored: requirement 'is_invocable_v<
          std::__bind_back_op<1, std::integer_sequence<unsigned long, 0>>,
          std::ranges::views::__transform::__fn &, std::tuple<PlusOne> &,
          ContiguousView>' was not satisfied [with _Args = <ContiguousView>]

Basically, it tries to do a poor man's implementation of concepts, which
is already a lot better than simply complaining about substitution failure.

Hence, this commit uses enable_if_t instead of _EnableIf whenever
possible. That is both more straightforward than using the internal
helper, and also leads to better error messages in those cases.

I understand the motivation for _EnableIf's implementation was to improve
compile-time performance, however I believe striving to improve error
messages is even more important for our QOI, hence this patch. Furthermore,
it is unclear that _EnableIf actually improved compile-time performance
in any noticeable way (see discussion in the review for details).

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108216
2021-09-08 09:09:28 -04:00
Louis Dionne
f599e7a789 [libc++] Refactor __perfect_forward, bind_front and not_fn
This patch fixes the constrains on the __perfect_forward constructor
and its call operators, which were incorrect. In particular, it makes
sure that we closely follow [func.require], which basically says that
we must deliver the bound arguments with the appropriate value category
or make the call ill-formed, but not silently fall back to using a
different value category.

As a fly-by, this patch also:
- Adds types __bind_front_t and __not_fn_t to make the result of
  calling bind_front and not_fn more opaque, and improve diagnostics
  for users.
- Adds a bunch of tests for bind_front and remove some that are now
  redundant.
- Adds some missing _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI annotations.

Immense thanks to @tcanens for raising awareness about this issue, and
providing help with the = delete bits.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107199
2021-08-09 15:32:00 -04:00
Christopher Di Bella
050b064f15 [libcxx][functional][modular] splices <functional> into modular headers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104942
2021-07-01 14:01:49 -04:00