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++] 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 ...

Fix failing -verify tests due to change in Clangs static_assert message.

Clang recently changed the way it outputs static assert diagnostics.
This patch fixes libc++'s -verify tests so they tolerate

Fix failing -verify tests due to change in Clangs static_assert message.

Clang recently changed the way it outputs static assert diagnostics.
This patch fixes libc++'s -verify tests so they tolerate both the old
and new message format.

llvm-svn: 313499

show more ...

Implement N4606 optional

Summary:
Adapt implementation of Library Fundamentals TS optional into an implementation of N4606 optional.

- Update relational operators per http://wg21.link/P0307
- U

Implement N4606 optional

Summary:
Adapt implementation of Library Fundamentals TS optional into an implementation of N4606 optional.

- Update relational operators per http://wg21.link/P0307
- Update to requirements of http://wg21.link/P0032
- Extension: Implement trivial copy/move construction/assignment for `optional<T>` when `T` is trivially copyable.

Audit P/Rs for optional LWG issues:
- 2756 "C++ WP optional<T> should 'forward' T's implicit conversions" Implemented, which also resolves 2753 "Optional's constructors and assignments need constraints" (modulo my refusal to explicitly delete the move operations, which is a design error that I'm working on correcting in the 2756 P/R).
- 2736 "nullopt_t insufficiently constrained" Already conforming. I've added a test ensuring that `nullopt_t` is not copy-initializable from an empty braced-init-list, which I believe is the root intent of the issue, to avoid regression.
- 2740 "constexpr optional<T>::operator->" Already conforming.
- 2746 "Inconsistency between requirements for emplace between optional and variant" No P/R, but note that the author's '"suggested resolution" is already implemented.
- 2748 "swappable traits for optionals" Already conforming.
- 2753 "Optional's constructors and assignments need constraints" Implemented.

Most of the work for this patch was done by Casey Carter @ Microsoft. Thank you Casey!



Reviewers: mclow.lists, CaseyCarter, EricWF

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22741

llvm-svn: 283980

show more ...

Add <optional> header.

This patch is largely thanks to Casey Carter @ Microsoft. He did the initial
work of porting our experimental implementation and tests over to namespace
std.

llvm-svn: 283977