|
Revision tags: llvmorg-18.1.8, llvmorg-18.1.7, llvmorg-18.1.6, llvmorg-18.1.5, llvmorg-18.1.4, llvmorg-18.1.3, llvmorg-18.1.2, llvmorg-18.1.1, llvmorg-18.1.0, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-19-init, llvmorg-17.0.6, llvmorg-17.0.5 |
|
| #
d05bada5 |
| 12-Nov-2023 |
Duo Wang <duow1@uci.edu> |
[libcxx][test] std::array::iterator are not pointers by C++ standard (#70729)
This is to modify a list of libcxx tests written under the assumption
that iterators for std::array, std::string_view,
[libcxx][test] std::array::iterator are not pointers by C++ standard (#70729)
This is to modify a list of libcxx tests written under the assumption
that iterators for std::array, std::string_view, and std::string are
pointers. The motivation for this PR is to make the tests more universal
and potentially being used to test other C++ standard library
implementations, for example
[microsoft/STL](https://github.com/microsoft/STL).
I can confirm that this patch makes a number of tests compatible with
microsoft STL:
`Failed : 204 (2.12%)` -> `Failed : 136 (1.42%)`
, and does not break any tests on `libcxx`.
This is not a complete list of such incompatibilities, but I am hoping
this will start a discussion about whether we are open to accepting such
changes.
show more ...
|
| #
02540b2f |
| 07-Nov-2023 |
Louis Dionne <ldionne.2@gmail.com> |
[libc++] Make sure ranges algorithms and views handle boolean-testable correctly (#69378)
Before this patch, we would fail to implicitly convert the result of
predicates to bool, which means we'd p
[libc++] Make sure ranges algorithms and views handle boolean-testable correctly (#69378)
Before this patch, we would fail to implicitly convert the result of
predicates to bool, which means we'd potentially perform a copy or move
construction of the boolean-testable, which isn't allowed. The same
holds true for comparing iterators against sentinels, which is allowed
to return a boolean-testable type.
We already had tests aiming to ensure correct handling of these types,
but they failed to provide appropriate coverage in several cases due to
guaranteed RVO. This patch fixes the tests, adds tests for missing
algorithms and views, and fixes the actual problems in the code.
Fixes #69074
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-17.0.4, llvmorg-17.0.3, llvmorg-17.0.2, llvmorg-17.0.1, llvmorg-17.0.0, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-18-init, llvmorg-16.0.6, llvmorg-16.0.5, llvmorg-16.0.4, llvmorg-16.0.3, llvmorg-16.0.2, llvmorg-16.0.1, llvmorg-16.0.0, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-17-init, llvmorg-15.0.7, llvmorg-15.0.6, llvmorg-15.0.5, llvmorg-15.0.4, llvmorg-15.0.3, working, llvmorg-15.0.2, llvmorg-15.0.1, llvmorg-15.0.0, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc3 |
|
| #
b8cb1dc9 |
| 18-Aug-2022 |
Louis Dionne <ldionne.2@gmail.com> |
[libc++] Make <ranges> non-experimental
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://re
[libc++] Make <ranges> non-experimental
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
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-15.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-16-init |
|
| #
f8cbe3cd |
| 06-Jul-2022 |
Nikolas Klauser <nikolasklauser@berlin.de> |
[libc++] Implement ranges::remove{, _if}
Reviewed By: var-const, #libc
Spies: huixie90, sstefan1, libcxx-commits, mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128618
|