-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update LLVM from upstream #2499
Conversation
... if it's enabled, it oughta work. As detected by libc++ test `std/utilities/memory/storage.iterator/types.compile.pass.cpp`.
We somehow failed to implement this operation as updated by P1522.
... in `input_or_output_iterator` and `common_with`. The implementations seem to think this affects subsumption, despite that my brain compiler believes they should be equivalent.
We/I failed to notice that LWG changed my proposed resolution before approving. Also relocates `_Require_constant` next to its only remaining use in the `_Tiny_range` concept in `<ranges>`.
Overload resolution falls back on the base class operators when the derived operators disappear.
Since Clang 14 still doesn't support P0960. It was a nice experiment, but it's time to move on.
for `convertible_to`, `common_reference_with`, and `swappable_with` to test with lvalue arrays of volatile elements.
... and fix a bug in `join_view::iterator::_Check_dereference`.
... to support the `join_view` iterator converting constructor.
Test coverage in `libcxx/test/std/utilities/memory/pointer.conversion/to_address.pass.cpp`.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Casey has mirrored this to MSVC-PR-375314 - any further commits need to be kept in sync. |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. I'm not 100% convinced doing the metaprogramming to sidestep the bool comparison warning is better than just letting it fire, as it's probably not something the user intended, but.... the standard does allow boolean widths.
Porting internally (again), please inform me of any changes (and please just don't). |
Thanks for this massive update fixing a whole bunch of bugs! 😻 🐞 🚀 |
Includes fixes for a couple of dozen tiny bugs discovered by new and/or updated tests, and one large update to the skipped tests list / magic_comments used to filter libc++ tests by the internal test runner.
I recommend reviewing by commit.
Fixes #2001.