[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++] Add a bunch of missing _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI

Reviewed By: ldionne, Mordante, var-const, huixie90, #libc

Spies: jloser, libcxx-commits, arichardson, miyuki

Differential Revision: https://r

[libc++] Add a bunch of missing _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI

Reviewed By: ldionne, Mordante, var-const, huixie90, #libc

Spies: jloser, libcxx-commits, arichardson, miyuki

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129968

show more ...

[libc++] Support int8_t and uint8_t in integer distributions as an extension

In D125283, we ensured that integer distributions would not compile when
used with arbitrary unsupported types. This effe

[libc++] Support int8_t and uint8_t in integer distributions as an extension

In D125283, we ensured that integer distributions would not compile when
used with arbitrary unsupported types. This effectively enforced what
the Standard mentions here: http://eel.is/c++draft/rand#req.genl-1.5.

However, this also had the effect of breaking some users that were
using integer distributions with unsupported types like int8_t. Since we
already support using __int128_t in those distributions, it is reasonable
to also support smaller types like int8_t and its unsigned variant. This
commit implements that, adds tests and documents the extension. Note that
we voluntarily don't add support for instantiating these distributions
with bool and char, since those are not integer types. However, it is
trivial to replace uses of these random distributions on char using int8_t.

It is also interesting to note that in the process of adding tests
for smaller types, I discovered that our distributions sometimes don't
provide as faithful a distribution when instantiated with smaller types,
so I had to relax a couple of tests. In particular, we do a really bad
job at implementing the negative binomial, geometric and poisson distributions
for small types. I think this all boils down to the algorithm we use in
std::poisson_distribution, however I am running out of time to investigate
that and changing the algorithm would be an ABI break (which might be
reasonable).

As part of this patch, I also added a mitigation for a very likely
integer overflow bug we were hitting in our tests in negative_binomial_distribution.
I also filed http://llvm.org/PR56656 to track fixing the problematic
distributions with int8_t and uint8_t.

Supersedes D125283.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126823

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 ...

[libc++] Explicitly reject `uniform_int_distribution<bool>` and `<char>`.

`uniform_int_distribution<T>` is UB unless `T` is one of the non-character,
non-boolean integer types (`short` or larger). H

[libc++] Explicitly reject `uniform_int_distribution<bool>` and `<char>`.

`uniform_int_distribution<T>` is UB unless `T` is one of the non-character,
non-boolean integer types (`short` or larger). However, libc++ has never
enforced this. D114129 accidentally made `uniform_int_distribution<bool>`
into an error. Make it now *intentionally* an error; and likewise for the
character types and all user-defined class and enum types; but permit
`__[u]int128_t` to continue working.

Apply the same static_assert to all the integer distributions.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114920

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++] 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++] Granularize the <random> header. NFCI.

Actually there's one functional change here, which is that users can
no longer depend on <random> to include all of C++20 <concepts>. That
inclusion i

[libc++] Granularize the <random> header. NFCI.

Actually there's one functional change here, which is that users can
no longer depend on <random> to include all of C++20 <concepts>. That
inclusion is so new that we believe nobody should be depending on it
yet, even in the presence of Hyrum's Law. We keep the includes of <vector>,
<algorithm>, etc., so as not to break pre-C++20 Hyrum's Law users.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114281

show more ...