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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

Improve the formatting of static_assert messages

Display 'static_assert failed: message' instead of
'static_assert failed "message"' to be consistent
with other implementations and be slightly more

Improve the formatting of static_assert messages

Display 'static_assert failed: message' instead of
'static_assert failed "message"' to be consistent
with other implementations and be slightly more
readable.

Reviewed By: #libc, aaron.ballman, philnik, Mordante

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128844

show more ...

[libc++][NFC] Use cpp17_output_iterator in tests.

The renames the output_iterator to cpp17_output_iterator. These
iterators are still used in C++20 so it's not possible to change the
current type to

[libc++][NFC] Use cpp17_output_iterator in tests.

The renames the output_iterator to cpp17_output_iterator. These
iterators are still used in C++20 so it's not possible to change the
current type to the new C++20 requirements. This is done in a similar
fashion as the cpp17_input_iterator.

Reviewed By: #libc, Quuxplusone, ldionne

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117950

show more ...

[libc++] Remove Lit annotations for unsupported GCC versions from the test suite

Since we officially don't support several older compilers now, we can
drop a lot of the markup in the test suite. Thi

[libc++] Remove Lit annotations for unsupported GCC versions from the test suite

Since we officially don't support several older compilers now, we can
drop a lot of the markup in the test suite. This helps keep the test
suite simple and makes sure that UNSUPPORTED annotations don't rot.

This is the first patch of a series that will remove annotations for
compilers that are now unsupported.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107787

show more ...

[libcxx] Move all algorithms into their own headers

This is a fairly mechanical change, it just moves each algorithm into
its own header. This is intended to be a NFC.

This commit re-applies 7ed7d4

[libcxx] Move all algorithms into their own headers

This is a fairly mechanical change, it just moves each algorithm into
its own header. This is intended to be a NFC.

This commit re-applies 7ed7d4ccb899, which was reverted in 692d7166f771
because the Modules build got broken. The modules build has now been
fixed, so we're re-committing this.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103583

Attribution note
----------------
I'm only committing this. This commit is a mix of D103583, D103330 and
D104171 authored by:

Co-authored-by: Christopher Di Bella <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: zoecarver <[email protected]>

show more ...

Revert "[libcxx][gardening] Move all algorithms into their own headers."

This reverts commit 7ed7d4ccb8991e2b5b95334b508f8cec2faee737 as it
uncovered a Clang bug PR50592.

[libcxx][gardening] Move all algorithms into their own headers.

This is a fairly mechanical change, it just moves each algorithm into its own header. This is a NFC.

Note: during this change, I burn

[libcxx][gardening] Move all algorithms into their own headers.

This is a fairly mechanical change, it just moves each algorithm into its own header. This is a NFC.

Note: during this change, I burned down all the includes, so this follows "include only and exactly what you use."

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103583

show more ...

[libcxx][nfc] prefixes test type `input_iterator` with `cpp17_`

C++20 revised the definition of what it means to be an iterator. While
all _Cpp17InputIterators_ satisfy `std::input_iterator`, the re

[libcxx][nfc] prefixes test type `input_iterator` with `cpp17_`

C++20 revised the definition of what it means to be an iterator. While
all _Cpp17InputIterators_ satisfy `std::input_iterator`, the reverse
isn't true. D100271 introduces a new test adaptor to accommodate this
new definition (`cpp20_input_iterator`).

In order to help readers immediately distinguish which input iterator
adaptor is _Cpp17InputIterator_, the current `input_iterator` adaptor
has been prefixed with `cpp17_`.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101242

show more ...

[libc++] Mark some tests as unsupported on GCC 5

There used to be a workaround where we'd pretend that GCC 5 didn't support
C++14 because it doesn't implement it properly. Since that workaround has

[libc++] Mark some tests as unsupported on GCC 5

There used to be a workaround where we'd pretend that GCC 5 didn't support
C++14 because it doesn't implement it properly. Since that workaround has
been removed (in 1eb211ada17a), we need to mark a few individual tests as
failing with GCC 5.

show more ...

[libc++] Remove the c++98 Lit feature from the test suite

C++98 and C++03 are effectively aliases as far as Clang is concerned.
As such, allowing both std=c++98 and std=c++03 as Lit parameters is
ju

[libc++] Remove the c++98 Lit feature from the test suite

C++98 and C++03 are effectively aliases as far as Clang is concerned.
As such, allowing both std=c++98 and std=c++03 as Lit parameters is
just slightly confusing, but provides no value. It's similar to allowing
both std=c++17 and std=c++1z, which we don't do.

This was discovered because we had an internal bot that ran the test
suite under both c++98 AND c++03 -- one of which is redundant.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80926

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 ...

Tolerate Clangs new static_assert messages

llvm-svn: 349189

Implement C++17 std::sample.

This patch implements the std::sample function added to C++17 from LFTS. It
also removes the std::experimental::sample implementation which now forwards
to std::sample.

Implement C++17 std::sample.

This patch implements the std::sample function added to C++17 from LFTS. It
also removes the std::experimental::sample implementation which now forwards
to std::sample.

llvm-svn: 279948

show more ...