Rewording "static_assert" diagnosticsThis patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. Thischanges the wording to b
Rewording "static_assert" diagnosticsThis patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. Thischanges the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes someinstances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in thesource 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 thatare 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 thatare overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.This reverts commit 6542cb55a3eb115b1c3592514590a19987ffc498.
Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertionThis patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement'soutput(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in Cshould n
Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertionThis patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement'soutput(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in Cshould not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better toreword 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: 1Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better toreword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gccprints as:<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!" 1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!"); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Compiler returned: 1The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewordingthe static_assert to static assertion.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
Improve the formatting of static_assert messagesDisplay 'static_assert failed: message' instead of'static_assert failed "message"' to be consistentwith other implementations and be slightly more
Improve the formatting of static_assert messagesDisplay 'static_assert failed: message' instead of'static_assert failed "message"' to be consistentwith other implementations and be slightly morereadable.Reviewed By: #libc, aaron.ballman, philnik, MordanteDifferential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128844
[libc++] Replace _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS with _LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17. NFCI.All supported compilers that support C++20 now support concepts. So, remove`_LIB_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS` in favor of `_LIBC
[libc++] Replace _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS with _LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17. NFCI.All supported compilers that support C++20 now support concepts. So, remove`_LIB_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS` in favor of `_LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17`. Similarly inthe tests, remove `// UNSUPPORTED: libcpp-no-concepts`.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121528
[libc++][test] Portably silence warnings... in `<numbers>` tests with `[[maybe_unused]]`.
[runtimes] Use int main(int, char**) consistently in testsThis is needed when running the tests in Freestanding mode, where main()isn't treated specially. In Freestanding, main() doesn't get mangl
[runtimes] Use int main(int, char**) consistently in testsThis is needed when running the tests in Freestanding mode, where main()isn't treated specially. In Freestanding, main() doesn't get mangled asextern "C", so whatever runtime we're using fails to find the entry point.One way to solve this problem is to define a symbol alias from __Z4mainiPPcto _main, however this requires all definitions of main() to have the samemangling. Hence this commit.
[libc++][pstl] Remove c++98 from UNSUPPORTED annotationsc++98 isn't used by the test suite anymore, only c++03 is.
[libc++] Require concepts support for <numbers>Similar to <concepts>, we need to protect the header and test againstinclusion and being run if concepts aren't supported by the compiler.Different
[libc++] Require concepts support for <numbers>Similar to <concepts>, we need to protect the header and test againstinclusion and being run if concepts aren't supported by the compiler.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82171
[libc++] Implement <numbers>Summary: Constants have 33 significant decimal digits for IEEE 754 128-bit floating-point numbers.Reviewers: ldionne, #libc, EricWF, zoecarver, curdeiusReviewed By:
[libc++] Implement <numbers>Summary: Constants have 33 significant decimal digits for IEEE 754 128-bit floating-point numbers.Reviewers: ldionne, #libc, EricWF, zoecarver, curdeiusReviewed By: ldionne, #libc, curdeiusDifferential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77505