r333467 updated the symbols exported by libc++.so/dylib by changing
the ODR usage of __uncaught_exception/__uncaught_exceptions. This
should not be a breaking change.
llvm-svn: 333481
Patch from Arthur O'Dwyer.
In the TS, `uses_allocator` construction for `pair` tried to use an allocator
type of `memory_resource*`, which is incorrect because `memory_resource*` is
not an allocator type. LWG 2969 fixed it to use `polymorphic_allocator` as the
allocator type instead.
https://wg21.link/lwg2969
(D47090 included this in `<memory_resource>`; at Eric's request, I've split
this out into its own patch applied to the existing
`<experimental/memory_resource>` instead.)
Reviewed as https://reviews.llvm.org/D47109
llvm-svn: 333384
That's r333325, as well as follow-up "Fix GCC handling of ATOMIC_VAR_INIT"
r333327.
Marshall asked to revert:
Let's have a discussion about how to implement this so that it is more friendly
to people with installed code bases. We've had *extremely* loud responses to
unilaterally adding warnings - especially ones that can't be easily disabled -
to the libc++ code base in the past.
llvm-svn: 333351
r333325 from D47225 added warning checks, and the test was written to be C++11 correct by using ATOMIC_VAR_INIT (note that the committee fixed that recently...). It seems like GCC can't handle ATOMIC_VAR_INIT well because it generates 'type 'std::atomic<int>' cannot be initialized with an initializer list' on bot libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-cxx03. Drop the ATOMIC_VAR_INITs since they weren't required to test the diagnostics.
llvm-svn: 333327
Summary:
The atomic non-member functions accept pointers to std::atomic / std::atomic_flag as well as to the non-atomic value. These are all dereferenced unconditionally when lowered, and therefore will fault if null. It's a tiny gotcha for new users, especially when they pass in NULL as expected value (instead of passing a pointer to a NULL value). We can therefore use the nonnull attribute to denote that:
- A warning should be generated if the argument is null
- It is undefined behavior if the argument is null (because a dereference will segfault)
This patch adds support for this attribute for clang and GCC, and sticks to the subset of the syntax both supports. In particular, work around this GCC oddity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60625
The attributes are documented:
- https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.0.0/gcc/Function-Attributes.html
- https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#nullability-attributes
I'm authoring a companion clang patch for the __c11_* and __atomic_* builtins, which currently only warn on a subset of the pointer parameters.
In all cases the check needs to be explicit and not use the empty nonnull list, because some of the overloads are for atomic<T*> and the values themselves are allowed to be null.
<rdar://problem/18473124>
Reviewers: arphaman, EricWF
Subscribers: aheejin, christof, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47225
llvm-svn: 333325
Some *_l functions were not available in some versions of Bionic. This CL
checks that the NDK version supports the functions, and if not, falls back
on the corresponding functions that don't take a locale.
Patch by Tom Anderson!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46558
llvm-svn: 332543
C11 defines `kill_dependency` as a macro in <stdatomic.h>. When you
include <atomic> after <stdatomic.h>, the macro clashes with
`std::kill_dependency` and causes multiple errors. Explicit error should
help in diagnosing those errors.
No change for working code that includes <atomic> before <stdatomic.h>.
rdar://problem/27435938
Reviewers: rsmith, EricWF, mclow.lists, jfb
Reviewed By: jfb
Subscribers: jfb, jkorous-apple, christof, bumblebritches57, JonChesterfield, smeenai, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45470
llvm-svn: 332413
Checking for complete types is really rather tricky when you consider
the amount of specializations required to check a function type. This
specifically caused PR37407 where we incorrectly diagnosed
noexcept function types as incomplete (but there were plenty of other
cases that would cause this).
This patch removes the complete type checking for now. I'm going
to look into adding a clang builtin to correctly do this for us.
llvm-svn: 332040
Atomics in C and C++ are incompatible at the moment and mixing the
headers can result in confusing error messages.
Emit an error explicitly telling about the incompatibility. Introduce
the macro `__ALLOW_STDC_ATOMICS_IN_CXX__` that allows to choose in C++
between C atomics and C++ atomics.
rdar://problem/27435938
Reviewers: rsmith, EricWF, mclow.lists
Reviewed By: mclow.lists
Subscribers: jkorous-apple, christof, bumblebritches57, JonChesterfield, smeenai, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45470
llvm-svn: 331379
When using an old version of glibc, a ::isinf(double) and ::isnan(double)
function is provided, rather than just the macro required by C and C++.
Displace this function using _LIBCPP_PREFERRED_OVERLOAD where possible.
The only remaining case where we should get the wrong return type is now
glibc + libc++ + a non-clang compiler.
llvm-svn: 331241
seekoff.pass.cpp:
libc++'s tests are asserting things about the buffer passed to pubsetbuf. [filebuf.virtuals]/12 says that what the filebuf does with the buffer you give it is completely implementation defined. The MSVC++ implementation takes that buffer and hands it off to the CRT (by calling ::setvbuf) and the CRT doesn't necessarily follow the pattern this test wants.
This change simply makes asserts against the buffer's contents use LIBCPP_ASSERT instead of assert.
pbackfail.pass.cpp:
libc++'s tests are asserting about what characters will and will not be available in the putback area. [filebuf.virtuals]/9 says "The function can alter the number of putback positions available as a result of any call." This change LIBCPP_ASSERTS libc++'s behavior, but checks invariants of the putback area independently.
llvm-svn: 330999
Be defensive against a reentrant std::function::operator=(nullptr_t), in case
the held function object has a non-trivial destructor. Destroying the function
object in-place can lead to the destructor being called twice.
Patch by Duncan P. N. Exon Smith. C++03 support by Volodymyr Sapsai.
rdar://problem/32836603
Reviewers: EricWF, mclow.lists
Reviewed By: mclow.lists
Subscribers: cfe-commits, arphaman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34331
llvm-svn: 330885
Eric Fiselier