This patch runs clang-format on all of libcxx/include and libcxx/src, in
accordance with the RFC discussed at [1]. Follow-up patches will format
the benchmarks, the test suite and remaining parts of the code. I'm
splitting this one into its own patch so the diff is a bit easier to
review.
This patch was generated with:
find libcxx/include libcxx/src -type f \
| grep -v 'module.modulemap.in' \
| grep -v 'CMakeLists.txt' \
| grep -v 'README.txt' \
| grep -v 'libcxx.imp' \
| grep -v '__config_site.in' \
| xargs clang-format -i
A Git merge driver is available in libcxx/utils/clang-format-merge-driver.sh
to help resolve merge and rebase issues across these formatting changes.
[1]: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-clang-formatting-all-of-libc-once-and-for-all
This change is almost fully mechanical. The only interesting change is in `generate_feature_test_macro_components.py` to generate `_LIBCPP_STD_VER >=` instead. To avoid churn in the git-blame this commit should be added to the `.git-blame-ignore-revs` once committed.
Reviewed By: ldionne, var-const, #libc
Spies: jloser, libcxx-commits, arichardson, arphaman, wenlei
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143962
`<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 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
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 in
the tests, remove `// UNSUPPORTED: libcpp-no-concepts`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121528
Per Discord discussion, we're normalizing on a simple `!defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS)`
so that we can do a big search-and-replace for `!defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS)`
back into `_LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17` when we're ready to abandon support for concept-syntax-less
compilers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118748
We've stopped doing it in libc++ for a while now because these names
would end up rotting as we move things around and copy/paste stuff.
This cleans up all the existing files so as to stop the spreading
as people copy-paste headers around.
libc++ was previously a bit confused by what the value of __cpp_concepts
should be. Also replaces `__floating_point` with `floating_point` now
that it exists.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97015
I used a lot of `git grep` to find places where `std::` was being used
outside of comments and assert-messages. There were three outcomes:
- Qualified function calls, e.g. `std::move` becomes `_VSTD::move`.
This is the most common case.
- Typenames that don't need qualification, e.g. `std::allocator` becomes `allocator`.
Leaving these as `_VSTD::allocator` would also be fine, but I decided
that removing the qualification is more consistent with existing practice.
- Names that specifically need un-versioned `std::` qualification,
or that I wasn't sure about. For example, I didn't touch any code in
<atomic>, <math.h>, <new>, or any ext/ or experimental/ headers;
and I didn't touch any instances of `std::type_info`.
In some deduction guides, we were accidentally using `class Alloc = typename std::allocator<T>`,
despite `std::allocator<T>`'s type-ness not being template-dependent.
Because `std::allocator` is a qualified name, this did parse as we intended;
but what we meant was simply `class Alloc = allocator<T>`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92250
Similar to <concepts>, we need to protect the header and test against
inclusion and being run if concepts aren't supported by the compiler.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82171
