2 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Louis Dionne
615e6dd1c5
[🍒][libc++] Fix missing and incorrect push/pop macros (#79204) (#79497)
We recently noticed that the unwrap_iter.h file was pushing macros, but
it was pushing them again instead of popping them at the end of the
file. This led to libc++ basically swallowing any custom definition of
these macros in user code:

    #define min HELLO
    #include <algorithm>
    // min is not HELLO anymore, it's not defined

While investigating this issue, I noticed that our push/pop pragmas were
actually entirely wrong too. Indeed, instead of pushing macros like
`move`, we'd push `move(int, int)` in the pragma, which is not a valid
macro name. As a result, we would not actually push macros like `move`
-- instead we'd simply undefine them. This led to the following code not
working:

    #define move HELLO
    #include <algorithm>
    // move is not HELLO anymore

Fixing the pragma push/pop incantations led to a cascade of issues
because we use identifiers like `move` in a large number of places, and
all of these headers would now need to do the push/pop dance.

This patch fixes all these issues. First, it adds a check that we don't
swallow important names like min, max, move or refresh as explained
above. This is done by augmenting the existing
system_reserved_names.gen.py test to also check that the macros are what
we expect after including each header.

Second, it fixes the push/pop pragmas to work properly and adds missing
pragmas to all the files I could detect a failure in via the newly added
test.

rdar://121365472
(cherry picked from commit 7b4622514d232ce5f7110dd8b20d90e81127c467)
2024-02-01 17:51:34 -08:00
ZijunZhaoCCK
fdd089b500
[libc++] Implement ranges::contains (#65148)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D159232
```
Running ./ranges_contains.libcxx.out
Run on (10 X 24.121 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
  L1 Data 64 KiB (x10)
  L1 Instruction 128 KiB (x10)
  L2 Unified 4096 KiB (x5)
Load Average: 3.37, 6.77, 5.27
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark                          Time             CPU   Iterations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
bm_contains_char/16             1.88 ns         1.87 ns    371607095
bm_contains_char/256            7.48 ns         7.47 ns     93292285
bm_contains_char/4096           99.7 ns         99.6 ns      7013185
bm_contains_char/65536          1296 ns         1294 ns       540436
bm_contains_char/1048576       23887 ns        23860 ns        29302
bm_contains_char/16777216     389420 ns       389095 ns         1796
bm_contains_int/16              7.14 ns         7.14 ns     97776288
bm_contains_int/256             90.4 ns         90.3 ns      7558089
bm_contains_int/4096            1294 ns         1290 ns       543052
bm_contains_int/65536          20482 ns        20443 ns        34334
bm_contains_int/1048576       328817 ns       327965 ns         2147
bm_contains_int/16777216     5246279 ns      5239361 ns          133
bm_contains_bool/16             2.19 ns         2.19 ns    322565780
bm_contains_bool/256            3.42 ns         3.41 ns    205025467
bm_contains_bool/4096           22.1 ns         22.1 ns     31780479
bm_contains_bool/65536           333 ns          332 ns      2106606
bm_contains_bool/1048576        5126 ns         5119 ns       135901
bm_contains_bool/16777216      81656 ns        81574 ns         8569
```

---------

Co-authored-by: Nathan Gauër <brioche@google.com>
2023-12-19 16:34:19 -08:00