[libc++] Implement P2417R2 (A more constexpr bitset)

Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc

Spies: jloser, arichardson, libcxx-commits, arphaman

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131218

[libc++] Add warning pragma macros in the test suite

Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, EricWF

Spies: EricWF, libcxx-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121552

[libcxx][test] compiler options are non-portable

... it's easier to suppress warnings internally, where we can detect the compiler.

* Rename `TEST_COMPILER_C1XX` to `TEST_COMPILER_MSVC`
* Rename al

[libcxx][test] compiler options are non-portable

... it's easier to suppress warnings internally, where we can detect the compiler.

* Rename `TEST_COMPILER_C1XX` to `TEST_COMPILER_MSVC`
* Rename all `TEST_WORKAROUND_C1XX_<meow>` to `TEST_WORKAROUND_MSVC_<meow>`

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117422

show more ...

[libc++] NFC: Fix several GCC warnings in the test suite

- Several -Wshadow warnings
- Several places where we did not initialize our base class explicitly
- Unused variable warnings
- Some tautolog

[libc++] NFC: Fix several GCC warnings in the test suite

- Several -Wshadow warnings
- Several places where we did not initialize our base class explicitly
- Unused variable warnings
- Some tautological comparisons
- Some places where we'd pass null arguments to functions expecting
non-null (in unevaluated contexts)
- Add a few pragmas to turn off spurious warnings
- Fix warnings about declarations that don't declare anything
- Properly disable deprecation warnings in ext/ tests (the pragmas we
were using didn't work on GCC)
- Disable include_as_c.sh.cpp because GCC complains about C++ flags
when compiling as C. I couldn't find a way to fix this one properly,
so I'm disabling the test. This isn't great, but at least we'll be
able to enable warnings in the whole test suite with GCC.

show more ...

Support tests in freestanding

Summary:
Freestanding is *weird*. The standard allows it to differ in a bunch of odd
manners from regular C++, and the committee would like to improve that
situation. I

Support tests in freestanding

Summary:
Freestanding is *weird*. The standard allows it to differ in a bunch of odd
manners from regular C++, and the committee would like to improve that
situation. I'd like to make libc++ behave better with what freestanding should
be, so that it can be a tool we use in improving the standard. To do that we
need to try stuff out, both with "freestanding the language mode" and
"freestanding the library subset".

Let's start with the super basic: run the libc++ tests in freestanding, using
clang as the compiler, and see what works. The easiest hack to do this:

In utils/libcxx/test/config.py add:

self.cxx.compile_flags += ['-ffreestanding']

Run the tests and they all fail.

Why? Because in freestanding `main` isn't special. This "not special" property
has two effects: main doesn't get mangled, and main isn't allowed to omit its
`return` statement. The first means main gets mangled and the linker can't
create a valid executable for us to test. The second means we spew out warnings
(ew) and the compiler doesn't insert the `return` we omitted, and main just
falls of the end and does whatever undefined behavior (if you're luck, ud2
leading to non-zero return code).

Let's start my work with the basics. This patch changes all libc++ tests to
declare `main` as `int main(int, char**` so it mangles consistently (enabling us
to declare another `extern "C"` main for freestanding which calls the mangled
one), and adds `return 0;` to all places where it was missing. This touches 6124
files, and I apologize.

The former was done with The Magic Of Sed.

The later was done with a (not quite correct but decent) clang tool:

https://gist.github.com/jfbastien/793819ff360baa845483dde81170feed

This works for most tests, though I did have to adjust a few places when e.g.
the test runs with `-x c`, macros are used for main (such as for the filesystem
tests), etc.

Once this is in we can create a freestanding bot which will prevent further
regressions. After that, we can start the real work of supporting C++
freestanding fairly well in libc++.

<rdar://problem/47754795>

Reviewers: ldionne, mclow.lists, EricWF

Subscribers: christof, jkorous, dexonsmith, arphaman, miyuki, libcxx-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57624

llvm-svn: 353086

show more ...

Update more file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license. These used slightly different spellings that
defeated my regular expressions.

We understand that

Update more file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license. These used slightly different spellings that
defeated my regular expressions.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351648

show more ...

[libcxx] [test] Suppress MSVC's /analyze warning C6294 in a more fine-grained manner.

Fixes D32926.

llvm-svn: 302325

[libcxx] [test] D27269: Fix MSVC x64 warning C4267 "conversion from 'size_t' to 'int' [or 'unsigned int'], possible loss of data", part 3/4.

test/std/containers/sequences/vector.bool/copy.pass.cpp
t

[libcxx] [test] D27269: Fix MSVC x64 warning C4267 "conversion from 'size_t' to 'int' [or 'unsigned int'], possible loss of data", part 3/4.

test/std/containers/sequences/vector.bool/copy.pass.cpp
test/std/containers/sequences/vector.bool/copy_alloc.pass.cpp
test/std/containers/sequences/vector/vector.cons/copy.pass.cpp
test/std/containers/sequences/vector/vector.cons/copy_alloc.pass.cpp
Change "unsigned s = x.size();" to "typename C::size_type s = x.size();"
because that's what it returns.

test/std/strings/basic.string/string.cons/pointer_alloc.pass.cpp
Include <cstddef>, then change "unsigned n = T::length(s);"
to "std::size_t n = T::length(s);" because that's what char_traits returns.

test/std/strings/basic.string/string.cons/substr.pass.cpp
Change unsigned to typename S::size_type because that's what str.size() returns.

test/std/utilities/template.bitset/bitset.cons/ull_ctor.pass.cpp
This was needlessly truncating std::size_t to unsigned.
It's being used to compare and initialize std::size_t.

llvm-svn: 288753

show more ...

[libcxx] [test] D27025: Fix MSVC warning C4389 "signed/unsigned mismatch", part 12/12.

Various changes:

test/std/algorithms/alg.sorting/alg.merge/inplace_merge.pass.cpp
This is comparing value_type

[libcxx] [test] D27025: Fix MSVC warning C4389 "signed/unsigned mismatch", part 12/12.

Various changes:

test/std/algorithms/alg.sorting/alg.merge/inplace_merge.pass.cpp
This is comparing value_type to unsigned. value_type is sometimes int and sometimes struct S (implicitly constructible from int).
static_cast<value_type>(unsigned) silences the warning and doesn't do anything bad (as the values in question are small).

test/std/algorithms/alg.sorting/alg.nth.element/nth_element_comp.pass.cpp
This is comparing an int remote-element to size_t. The values in question are small and non-negative,
so either type is fine. I think that converting int to size_t is marginally better here than the reverse.

test/std/containers/sequences/deque/deque.cons/size.pass.cpp
DefaultOnly::count is int (and non-negative). When comparing to unsigned, use static_cast<unsigned>.

test/std/strings/basic.string/string.access/index.pass.cpp
We're comparing char to '0' through '9', but formed with the type size_t. Add static_cast<char>.

test/std/utilities/template.bitset/bitset.cons/ull_ctor.pass.cpp
Include <cstddef> for pedantic correctness (this test was already mentioning std::size_t).

"v[i] == (i & 1)" was comparing bool to size_t. Saying "v[i] == ((i & 1) != 0)" smashes the RHS to bool.

llvm-svn: 288749

show more ...

Mark LWG issue 2250 as complete

llvm-svn: 271475

Guard Clang and GCC specific pragmas. Patch from STL@microsoft.com

llvm-svn: 267836

Include what we use, instead of letting them get pulled in implictly. This makes the tests work on VS. Thanks to STL for the report

llvm-svn: 242454

Move test into test/std subdirectory.

llvm-svn: 224658