[libc++][NFC] Use [[__nodiscard__]] unconditionally (#80454)

`__has_cpp_attribute(__nodiscard__)` is always true now, so we might as
well replace `_LIBCPP_NODISCARD`. It's one less macro that can r

[libc++][NFC] Use [[__nodiscard__]] unconditionally (#80454)

`__has_cpp_attribute(__nodiscard__)` is always true now, so we might as
well replace `_LIBCPP_NODISCARD`. It's one less macro that can result in
bad diagnostics.

show more ...

[libc++] Check correctly ref-qualified __is_callable in algorithms (#101553)

We were only checking that the comparator was rvalue callable,
when in reality the algorithms always call comparators as

[libc++] Check correctly ref-qualified __is_callable in algorithms (#101553)

We were only checking that the comparator was rvalue callable,
when in reality the algorithms always call comparators as lvalues.
This patch also refactors the tests for callable requirements and
expands it to a few missing algorithms.

This is take 2 of #73451, which was reverted because it broke some
CI bots. The issue was that we checked __is_callable with arguments
in the wrong order inside std::upper_bound. This has now been fixed
and a test was added.

Fixes #69554

show more ...

[libc++] Revert "Check correctly ref-qualified __is_callable in algorithms (#73451)"

This reverts commit 8d151f804ff43aaed1edf810bb2a07607b8bba14, which
broke some build bots. I think that is caused

[libc++] Revert "Check correctly ref-qualified __is_callable in algorithms (#73451)"

This reverts commit 8d151f804ff43aaed1edf810bb2a07607b8bba14, which
broke some build bots. I think that is caused by an invalid argument
order when checking __is_comparable in upper_bound.

show more ...

[libc++] Check correctly ref-qualified __is_callable in algorithms (#73451)

We were only checking that the comparator was rvalue callable,
when in reality the algorithms always call comparators as

[libc++] Check correctly ref-qualified __is_callable in algorithms (#73451)

We were only checking that the comparator was rvalue callable,
when in reality the algorithms always call comparators as lvalues.
This patch also refactors the tests for callable requirements and
expands it to a few missing algorithms.

Fixes #69554

show more ...

[libc++] Remove _LIBCPP_DISABLE_NODISCARD_EXTENSIONS and refactor the tests (#87094)

This also adds a few tests that were missing.

[libc++] Format the code base (#74334)

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 benchmar

[libc++] Format the code base (#74334)

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

show more ...

[libc++] Rename _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY to _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI (#74095)

In preparation for running clang-format on the whole code base, we are
also removing mentions of the legacy _LIBCPP_INLIN

[libc++] Rename _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY to _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI (#74095)

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.

show more ...

[libc++] Refactor __less

This simplifies the usage of `__less` by making the class not depend on the types compared, but instead the `operator()`. We can't remove the template completely because we

[libc++] Refactor __less

This simplifies the usage of `__less` by making the class not depend on the types compared, but instead the `operator()`. We can't remove the template completely because we explicitly instantiate `std::__sort` with `__less<T>`.

Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc

Spies: arichardson, EricWF, libcxx-commits, mgrang

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D145285

show more ...

[libc++] Add [[clang::lifetimebound]] to min/max algorithms

Reviewed By: Mordante, #libc

Spies: libcxx-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D142608

[libc++][NFC] Rename the constexpr macros

This was discussed on Discord with the consensus that we should rename the macros.

Reviewed By: ldionne, Mordante, var-const, avogelsgesang, jloser, #libc

[libc++][NFC] Rename the constexpr macros

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

show more ...

[libc++][ranges] Implement ranges::minmax and ranges::minmax_element

Reviewed By: var-const, #libc, ldionne

Spies: sstefan1, ldionne, BRevzin, libcxx-commits, mgorny

Differential Revision: https:/

[libc++][ranges] Implement ranges::minmax and ranges::minmax_element

Reviewed By: var-const, #libc, ldionne

Spies: sstefan1, ldionne, BRevzin, libcxx-commits, mgorny

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120637

show more ...

[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).

[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

show more ...

[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 ou

[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

show more ...

[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'

[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

show more ...

[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/D1188

[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

show more ...

[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://revie

[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

show more ...

[libc++][NFC] Remove useless _LIBCPP_PUSH_MACROS

Only files that actually use min/max are required to do this dance.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108778

[libcxx] Move all algorithms into their own headers

This is a fairly mechanical change, it just moves each algorithm into
its own header. This is intended to be a NFC.

This commit re-applies 7ed7d4

[libcxx] Move all algorithms into their own headers

This is a fairly mechanical change, it just moves each algorithm into
its own header. This is intended to be a NFC.

This commit re-applies 7ed7d4ccb899, which was reverted in 692d7166f771
because the Modules build got broken. The modules build has now been
fixed, so we're re-committing this.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103583

Attribution note
----------------
I'm only committing this. This commit is a mix of D103583, D103330 and
D104171 authored by:

Co-authored-by: Christopher Di Bella <cjdb@google.com>
Co-authored-by: zoecarver <z.zoelec2@gmail.com>

show more ...

[libcxx][gardening] Move all algorithms into their own headers.

This is a fairly mechanical change, it just moves each algorithm into its own header. This is a NFC.

Note: during this change, I burn

[libcxx][gardening] Move all algorithms into their own headers.

This is a fairly mechanical change, it just moves each algorithm into its own header. This is a NFC.

Note: during this change, I burned down all the includes, so this follows "include only and exactly what you use."

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103583

show more ...