Based on D100160.
Details
- Reviewers
cjdb ldionne • Quuxplusone EricWF miscco - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rGbdd68357901d: [libc++][ranges] iterator.concept.sizedsentinel: sized_sentinel_for and…
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Unit Tests
Event Timeline
Code looks good modulo naming; the test drags in a lot of extra dependencies it doesn't need.
libcxx/include/iterator | ||
---|---|---|
1886–1893 | I'd prefer to see _Sp and _Ip just for consistency with line 2591. | |
libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.requirements/iterator.concepts/iterator.concept.sentinel/sized_sentinel_for.compile.pass.cpp | ||
43–48 | Instead of std::input_or_output_iterator auto, how about int*: struct IntSentinel { friend bool operator==(IntSentinel, int*); friend int operator-(IntSentinel, int*); friend int operator-(int*, IntSentinel); }; static_assert(std::sized_sentinel_for<IntSentinel, int*>); static_assert(!std::sized_sentinel_for<int*, IntSentinel>); // IntSentinel is not an iterator | |
66–72 | Please avoid reopening namespace std. Just struct DoubleSentinel { friend bool operator==(DoubleSentinel, double*); friend int operator-(DoubleSentinel, double*); friend int operator-(double*, DoubleSentinel); }; template<> inline constexpr bool std::disable_sized_sentinel_for<DoubleSentinel, double*> = true; // notice the un-necessity of `namespace std {` here static_assert(!std::sized_sentinel_for<DoubleSentinel, double*>); | |
156–163 | I don't think this test should depend on <filesystem>. (As below, all you're testing here is that you can't subtract directory_iterators, and we knew that already.) | |
187–191 | These initially confused me, but then I got it: it's because these iterators are merely bidirectional, not random-access, so they don't support operator-, so they're not "sized" sentinels. I would prefer to eliminate the dependency on the associative containers and write simply e.g. #include "test_iterators.h" static_assert(std::sized_sentinel_for<random_access_iterator<int*>, random_access_iterator<int*>>); static_assert(!std::sized_sentinel_for<bidirectional_iterator<int*>, bidirectional_iterator<int*>>); |
libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.requirements/iterator.concepts/iterator.concept.sentinel/sized_sentinel_for.compile.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
187–191 | Reiterating from previous reviews, which this one has inherited from: the point is to make sure these types are standard conforming. The dependencies are intentional. |
libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.requirements/iterator.concepts/iterator.concept.sentinel/sized_sentinel_for.compile.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
187–191 | SGTM. Will do. |
libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.requirements/iterator.concepts/iterator.concept.sentinel/sized_sentinel_for.compile.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
156–163 |
Which existing tests confirm this isn't possible? |
LGTM % comments — fix the nits and land it!
libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.requirements/iterator.concepts/iterator.concept.sentinel/sized_sentinel_for.compile.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
40–42 | Please remove constexpr. | |
45–47 | Nit: Either break the line between ; and //, or simply s/int_sized_sentinel/IntSentinel/ so that you don't need to break the line. | |
54 | s/std::vector<int>::iterator/int*/; then you don't need to break the line. | |
57 | Add: not_copyable() = default; | |
110–111 | Remove this linebreak. Ditto through the end of the file. | |
131–132 | s/std::vector<int>::iterator/int*/g so that you don't have to break the line. |
Please move all iterator concept conformance tests into their appropriate files (including re-adding any iterators that might have been deleted previously).
- Unindent comment that got moved.
libcxx/include/__iterator/concepts.h | ||
---|---|---|
123 | Any ideas as to why clang format wants to move this comment? |
libcxx/include/__iterator/concepts.h | ||
---|---|---|
111 |
This diff moved the phab comment 🤦. This is the code comment I'm talking about. |
std::list hasn't had its conformance test updated, but otherwise I have one nit.
libcxx/test/std/containers/associative/map/iterator_concept_conformance.compile.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
33–34 | This should be for iterator, and is missing checks for iterator and const_iterator on the RHS. Same for other files too. | |
46–47 | Missing checks for iterator and const_iterator on the RHS. Same for other files too. | |
libcxx/test/std/containers/sequences/array/iterator_concept_conformance.compile.pass.cpp | ||
42–60 | Could we order these as if they were a set of increasing two digit numbers please? iterator: 0 I think that will make it easier to track that all have been accounted for in the right permutation. | |
libcxx/test/std/containers/unord/unord.map/iterator_concept_conformance.compile.pass.cpp | ||
76 | local_iterator and const_local_iterator need checking too please. |
std::list still hasn't had its conformance test updated.
libcxx/test/std/containers/sequences/deque/iterator_concept_conformance.compile.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
53–61 | Thos lot isn't necessary (std::reverse_iterator gets its own file so it doesn't need to be on the LHS, but it looks to me like that file is missing?). |
std::list still hasn't had its conformance test updated.
For any future reviewers: this is done.
By the way, the windows bots were failing (everything else passed) because I didn't have an XFAIL on the added test but I added that before committing.
This diff moved the phab comment 🤦. This is the code comment I'm talking about.