[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++][NFC] Replace _LIBCPP_STD_VER > x with _LIBCPP_STD_VER >= x

This change is almost fully mechanical. The only interesting change is in `generate_feature_test_macro_components.py` to generate

[libc++][NFC] Replace _LIBCPP_STD_VER > x with _LIBCPP_STD_VER >= x

This change is almost fully mechanical. The only interesting change is in `generate_feature_test_macro_components.py` to generate `_LIBCPP_STD_VER >=` instead. To avoid churn in the git-blame this commit should be added to the `.git-blame-ignore-revs` once committed.

Reviewed By: ldionne, var-const, #libc

Spies: jloser, libcxx-commits, arichardson, arphaman, wenlei

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143962

show more ...

[libc++] Suppress -Wctad-maybe-unsupported on types w/o deduction guides

There are a handful of standard library types that are intended
to support CTAD but don't need any explicit deduction guides

[libc++] Suppress -Wctad-maybe-unsupported on types w/o deduction guides

There are a handful of standard library types that are intended
to support CTAD but don't need any explicit deduction guides to
do so.

This patch adds a dummy deduction guide to those types to suppress
-Wctad-maybe-unsupported (which gets emitted in user code).

This is a re-application of the original patch by Eric Fiselier in
fcd549a7d828 which had been reverted due to reasons lost at this point.
I also added the macro to a few more types. Reviving this patch was
prompted by the discussion on https://llvm.org/D133425.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133535

show more ...

[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++] Implement ranges::find_end, ranges::search{, _n}

Reviewed By: var-const, #libc, huixie90

Spies: thakis, h-vetinari, huixie90, libcxx-commits, mgorny

Differential Revision: https://reviews

[libc++] Implement ranges::find_end, ranges::search{, _n}

Reviewed By: var-const, #libc, huixie90

Spies: thakis, h-vetinari, huixie90, libcxx-commits, mgorny

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124079

show more ...

Revert "[libc++] Implement ranges::find_end, ranges::search{, _n}"

This reverts commit 76a76518507ccc59ccdad5b83f44dc8c3d9593c7.

[libc++] Implement ranges::find_end, ranges::search{, _n}

Reviewed By: var-const, #libc, huixie90

Spies: h-vetinari, huixie90, libcxx-commits, mgorny

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.or

[libc++] Implement ranges::find_end, ranges::search{, _n}

Reviewed By: var-const, #libc, huixie90

Spies: h-vetinari, huixie90, libcxx-commits, mgorny

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124079

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 ...

[libcxx][functional][modular] splices <functional> into modular headers

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104942