`<coroutine>` seems to be new enough to not be a huge problem.
Reviewed By: Mordante, #libc
Spies: libcxx-commits, ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140600
This defines a new policy for removal of transitive includes.
The goal of the policy it to make it relatively easy to remove
headers when needed, but avoid breaking developers using and
vendors shipping libc++.
The method used is to guard transitive includes based on the
C++ language version. For the upcoming C++23 we can remove
headers when we want, but for other language versions we try
to keep it to a minimum.
In this code the transitive include of `<chrono>` is removed
since D128577 introduces a header cycle between `<format>`
and `<chrono>`. This cycle is indirectly required by the
Standard. Our cycle dependency tool basically is a grep based
tool, so it needs some hints to ignore cycles. With the input
of our transitive include tests we can create a better tool.
However that's out of the scope of this patch.
Note the flag `_LIBCPP_REMOVE_TRANSITIVE_INCLUDES` remains
unchanged. So users can still opt-out of transitives includes
entirely.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne, philnik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132284
This commit re-adds transitive includes that had been removed by
4cd04d1687f1, c36870c8e79c, a83f4b9cda57, 1458458b558d, 2e2f3158c604,
and 489637e66dd3. This should cover almost all the includes that had
been removed since LLVM 14 and that would contribute to breaking user
code when releasing LLVM 15.
It is possible to disable the inclusion of these headers by defining
_LIBCPP_REMOVE_TRANSITIVE_INCLUDES. The intent is that vendors will
enable that macro and start fixing downstream issues immediately. We
can then remove the macro (and the transitive includes) by default in
a future release. That way, we will break users only once by removing
transitive includes in bulk instead of doing it bit by bit a every
release, which is more disruptive for users.
Note 1: The set of headers to re-add was found by re-generating the
transitive include test on a checkout of release/14.x, which
provided the list of all transitive includes we used to provide.
Note 2: Several includes of <vector>, <optional>, <array> and <unordered_map>
have been added in this commit. These transitive inclusions were
added when we implemented boyer_moore_searcher in <functional>.
Note 3: This is a best effort patch to try and resolve downstream breakage
caused since branching LLVM 14. I wasn't able to perfectly mirror
transitive includes in LLVM 14 for a few headers, so I added a
release note explaining it. To summarize, adding boyer_moore_searcher
created a bunch of circular dependencies, so we have to break
backwards compatibility in a few cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128661
This patch changes the requirement for getting the declaration of the
assertion handler from including <__assert> to including any public
C++ header of the library. Note that C compatibility headers are
excluded because we don't implement all the C headers ourselves --
some of them are taken straight from the C library, like assert.h.
It also adds a generated test to check it. Furthermore, this new
generated test is designed in a way that will make it possible to
replace almost all the existing test-generation scripts with this
system in upcoming patches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122506
The NFC part of D116809. We still want to enforce this in CI,
but the mechanism for that is still to-be-determined.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116809
Since coroutine is merged in C++ standard and the support for coroutine
seems relatively stable. It's the time to move the implementation of
coroutine out of the experimental directory and the std::experimental
namespace. This patch creates header <coroutine> with conformed
implementation with C++ standard. To avoid breaking user's code too
fast, the <experimental/coroutine> header is remained. Note that
<experimental/coroutine> is deprecated and it would be removed in
LLVM15.
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109433
