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, llvmorg-17.0.4, llvmorg-17.0.3, llvmorg-17.0.2 |
|
#
9bb9ec38 |
| 28-Sep-2023 |
Louis Dionne <ldionne.2@gmail.com> |
[libc++][NFC] Simplify checks for static assertions in .verify.cpp tests (#67559)
We don't neeed to handle both spellings anymore since we don't support
Clang 15 anymore.
|
Revision tags: 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 |
|
#
72f0edf3 |
| 16-Mar-2023 |
Louis Dionne <ldionne.2@gmail.com> |
[libc++] Remove unnecessary main() function in .compile.pass.cpp and .verify.cpp tests
We pretty consistently don't define those cause they are not needed, and it removes the potential pitfall to th
[libc++] Remove unnecessary main() function in .compile.pass.cpp and .verify.cpp tests
We pretty consistently don't define those cause they are not needed, and it removes the potential pitfall to think that these tests are being run. This doesn't touch .compile.fail.cpp tests since those should be replaced by .verify.cpp tests anyway, and there would be a lot to fix up.
As a fly-by, I also fixed a bit of formatting, removed a few unused includes and made some very minor, clearly NFC refactorings such as in allocator.traits/allocator.traits.members/allocate.verify.cpp where the old test basically made no sense the way it was written.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D146236
show more ...
|
Revision tags: 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, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-16-init |
|
#
76476efd |
| 25-Jul-2022 |
Muhammad Usman Shahid <codesbyusman@gmail.com> |
Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics
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 b
Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics
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
show more ...
|
#
1da31190 |
| 21-Jul-2022 |
Erich Keane <erich.keane@intel.com> |
Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This
Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"
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.
show more ...
|
#
6542cb55 |
| 21-Jul-2022 |
Muhammad Usman Shahid <codesbyusman@gmail.com> |
Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion
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 n
Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion
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
show more ...
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-14.0.6, llvmorg-14.0.5, llvmorg-14.0.4, llvmorg-14.0.3, llvmorg-14.0.2, llvmorg-14.0.1, llvmorg-14.0.0, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-15-init, llvmorg-13.0.1, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc1, llvmorg-13.0.0, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc1 |
|
#
f599e7a7 |
| 30-Jul-2021 |
Louis Dionne <ldionne.2@gmail.com> |
[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
[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
show more ...
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-14-init, llvmorg-12.0.1, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc4, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc3 |
|
#
e35677c0 |
| 22-Jun-2021 |
Louis Dionne <ldionne.2@gmail.com> |
[libc++] NFC: Remove unused c++98 Lit feature
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-12.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc1, llvmorg-12.0.0, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc5, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc3 |
|
#
84a50f59 |
| 03-Mar-2021 |
zoecarver <z.zoelec2@gmail.com> |
[libc++] Add bind_front function (P0356R5).
Implementes [[ http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0356r5.html | P0356R5 ]]. Adds `bind_front` to `functional`.
Reviewed By: ldionne
[libc++] Add bind_front function (P0356R5).
Implementes [[ http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0356r5.html | P0356R5 ]]. Adds `bind_front` to `functional`.
Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, Quuxplusone
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60368
show more ...
|