Details
- Reviewers
cjdb ldionne - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rG9d982c67ba01: [libcxx][ranges] Add `ranges::reverse_view`.
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
I don't think I need to see this again after you address my comments, and have green CI. Thanks!
libcxx/include/__ranges/reverse_view.h | ||
---|---|---|
21–22 | Not needed since we don't use min/max. | |
36 | Per our discussion just now, could you file a bug report against Clang to ask whether this is intended: https://godbolt.org/z/bs15aq466? | |
37 | Why not [[no_unique_address]]? | |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.reverse/base.pass.cpp | ||
43 | Please comment // test with a non-common_range below, and // test with a common_range above. This applies elsewhere too - I'd like to be able to tell exactly what you're testing by just glancing at it - imagine I'm veeeery lazy. | |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.reverse/begin.pass.cpp | ||
45 | Can we add a test with a random access range that is *not* a common range? We won't be caching in that case either. | |
83 | As we just discussed, this test doesn't fail properly even if we remove the caching inside reverse_view, so that should be fixed. | |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.reverse/ctor.view.pass.cpp | ||
43 | Can you test the explicit-ness by doing static_assert( std::is_constructible_v<...>); static_assert(!std::is_convertible_v<...>); | |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.reverse/end.pass.cpp | ||
58 | This looks like a copy-paste leftover from the tests for begin (quoting yourself). Let's remove. | |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.reverse/range_concept_conformance.compile.pass.cpp | ||
25–28 |
Not needed since we don't use min/max.