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
Conversion from '__int64' to 'long', possible loss of datallvm-project\libcxx\test\std\time\time.hms\time.hms.members\seconds.pass.cpp(38): note: see reference to function template instantiation 'l
Conversion from '__int64' to 'long', possible loss of datallvm-project\libcxx\test\std\time\time.hms\time.hms.members\seconds.pass.cpp(38): note: see reference to function template instantiation 'long check_seconds<std::chrono::seconds>(Duration)' being compiled with [ Duration=std::chrono::seconds ]llvm-project\libcxx\test\std\time\time.hms\time.hms.members\seconds.pass.cpp(31): warning C4244: 'return': conversion from '_Rep' to 'long', possible loss of data with [ _Rep=__int64 ]Reviewed By: #libc, MordanteDifferential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129928
[libc++][chrono] Adds operator<=> for day.Since the calendar classes were introduced in C++20 there's no need tokeep the old comparison operators.This commit does the day calender class, the oth
[libc++][chrono] Adds operator<=> for day.Since the calendar classes were introduced in C++20 there's no need tokeep the old comparison operators.This commit does the day calender class, the other calendar classes willbe in a followup commit.Implements parts of:- P1614R2 The mothership has landedReviewed By: #libc, ldionneDifferential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128603
[libc++][test] Adds spaceship support to macros.This was already reviewed as D128603. This contains only the updates tothe test script.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129578
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
[runtimes] Rename various libcpp-has-no-XYZ Lit features to just no-XYZSince those features are general properties of the environment, it makessense to use them from libc++abi too, and so the name
[runtimes] Rename various libcpp-has-no-XYZ Lit features to just no-XYZSince those features are general properties of the environment, it makessense to use them from libc++abi too, and so the name libcpp-has-no-xxxdoesn't make sense.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126482
[NFC][libc++][test] Move time tests.In the C++20 Standard time is no longer section under utilities, butbecame its own chapter. This moves the time tests accordingly so theirlocation matches the
[NFC][libc++][test] Move time tests.In the C++20 Standard time is no longer section under utilities, butbecame its own chapter. This moves the time tests accordingly so theirlocation matches the current Standard.Reviewed By: ldionne, #libcDifferential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122745