[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D127953: [libc++] Mark standard-mandated includes as such

James Nagurne via Phabricator via libcxx-commits libcxx-commits at lists.llvm.org
Sat Jun 25 19:01:59 PDT 2022

JamesNagurne added a comment.

In D127953#3610109 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D127953#3610109>, @Mordante wrote:

> Usually we wait for an LWG issue to be accepted by the committee before implementing them. An issue might be closed as NAD or get a different resolution as proposed. I'm a bit surprised that a standard conformance test is testing for something not in the WP yet.
> Just curious which tool flags this?

I'm not precisely sure what you mean by 'which tool', but here's a reproduction using a cut-down reproduction of the standard test using clang trunk with libc++


Note that the proposal, adds the following clause to tuple.helper

"In addition to being available via inclusion of the <tuple> header, the entities defined in this subclause [tuple.helper] are available when any of the headers <array> (24.3.2 [array.syn]), <ranges> (26.2 [ranges.syn]), <span> (24.7.2 [span.syn]), or <utility> (22.2.1 [utility.syn]) are included."

I can see why the standards body received this request. Since array, pair, etc. also have tuple_size specializations, it's very similar in reasoning to including iterator helpers for STL containers that support iterators.
We currently have a request for comment out to the company providing the test suite, and don't really require upstream changes as we're capable of excluding the test(s) until such time that the issue is either resolved or rejected. I just wondered if there was a process in place for such things, since I can't imagine my team being the only ones using popular standard conformance test suites.

  rG LLVM Github Monorepo



More information about the libcxx-commits mailing list