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++][test] Remove disable_missing_braces_warning.h from tests

Several tests include `disable_missing_braces_warning.h` but do not need
to. Remove the include.

Inspired from discussion at https:

[libc++][test] Remove disable_missing_braces_warning.h from tests

Several tests include `disable_missing_braces_warning.h` but do not need
to. Remove the include.

Inspired from discussion at https://reviews.llvm.org/D109668

Reviewed By: ldionne, #libc, Mordante

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109711

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 ...

[libc++] Always use -fsyntax-only in .fail.cpp tests

We had a workaround because GCC 5 does not evaluate static assertions
that are dependent on template parameters. This commit removes the
workarou

[libc++] Always use -fsyntax-only in .fail.cpp tests

We had a workaround because GCC 5 does not evaluate static assertions
that are dependent on template parameters. This commit removes the
workaround and marks the corresponding tests as unsupported with GCC 5.
This has the benefit of bringing the new and the old test formats closer
without having to carry a workaround for an old compiler in the new
test format.

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 ...

Fix -verify static assert messages for older Clang versions

llvm-svn: 324529

[libc++] Fix PR35491 - std::array of zero-size doesn't work with non-default constructible types.

Summary:
This patch fixes llvm.org/PR35491 and LWG2157 (https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2157)

[libc++] Fix PR35491 - std::array of zero-size doesn't work with non-default constructible types.

Summary:
This patch fixes llvm.org/PR35491 and LWG2157 (https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2157)

The fix attempts to maintain ABI compatibility by replacing the array with a instance of `aligned_storage`.

Reviewers: mclow.lists, EricWF

Reviewed By: EricWF

Subscribers: lichray, cfe-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41223

llvm-svn: 324526

show more ...

Make array<const T, 0> non-CopyAssignable and make swap and fill ill-formed.

The standard isn't exactly clear how std::array should handle zero-sized arrays
with const element types. In particular W

Make array<const T, 0> non-CopyAssignable and make swap and fill ill-formed.

The standard isn't exactly clear how std::array should handle zero-sized arrays
with const element types. In particular W.R.T. copy assignment, swap, and fill.

This patch takes the position that those operations should be ill-formed,
and makes changes to libc++ to make it so.

This follows up on commit r324182.

llvm-svn: 324185

show more ...