After months of work there are only 4 tests still failing in C++03.
This patch fixes those tests.
All of the libc++ builders should be green.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@246275 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This patch marks *most* tests for `std::promise`, `std::future` and `std::shared_future` as unsupported in C++03. These tests fail in C++03 mode because they attempt to copy a `std::future` even though it is a `MoveOnly` type. AFAIK the missing move-semantics in `std::future` is the only reason these tests fail but without move semantics these classes are useless. For example even though `std::promise::set_value` and `std::promise::set_exception(...)` work in C++03 `std::promise` is still useless because we cannot call `std::promise::get_future(...)`.
It might be possible to hack `std::move(...)` like we do for `std::unique_ptr` to make the move semantics work but I don't think it is worth the effort. Instead I think we should leave the `<future>` header as-is and mark the failing tests as `UNSUPPORTED`. I don't believe there are any users of `std::future` or `std::promise` in C++03 because they are so unusable. Therefore I am not concerned about losing test coverage and possibly breaking users. However because there are still parts of `<future>` that work in C++03 it would be wrong to `#ifdef` out the entire header.
@mclow.lists Should we take further steps to prevent the use of `std::promise`, `std::future` and `std::shared_future` in C++03?
Note: This patch also cleans up the tests and converts them to use `support/test_allocator.h` instead of a duplicate class in `test/std/futures/test_allocator.h`.
Reviewers: mclow.lists
Subscribers: vsk, mclow.lists, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12135
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@246271 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
First I removed all of the uses of _LIBCPP_STD_VER and added LIT UNSUPPORTED tags to prevent the tests from being run in older standard dialects.
Second I increased the time tolerances used in some tests when testing with Thread Sanitizer because thread sanitizer make these tests take longer.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@245793 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Because <atomic> can now be used in C++03 there is no need for the test_atomic.h header.
This commit removes the header and converts all usages to use <atomic> instead.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@245468 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
std::packaged_task requires variadic templates and is #ifdef out in C++03.
This patch silences the tests in C++03. This patch also rewrites the .fail.cpp tests so that they use clang verify.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@245413 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This patch attempts to fix the last 3 TSAN failures on the libc++ bot (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-tsan/builds/143). This patch also adds a `Atomic` test type that can be used where `<atomic>` cannot.
`wait.exception.pass.cpp` and `wait_for.exception.pass.cpp` were failing because the test replaced `std::terminate` with `std::exit`. `std::exit` would asynchronously run the TLS and static destructors and this would cause a race condition. See PR22606 and D8802 for more details.
This is fixed by using `_Exit` to prevent cleanup.
`notify_all_at_thread_exit.pass.cpp` exercises the same race condition but for different reasons. I fixed this test by manually joining the thread before beginning program termination.
Reviewers: EricWF, mclow.lists
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11046
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@245389 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Within the shared state methods do not unlock the lock guards manually. This
could cause a race condition where the shared state is destroyed before the
method is complete.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@239577 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The test class 'G' reads and writes to the same static variables in its
constructor, destructor and call operator. When threads are
constructed using `std::thread t((G()))` there is a race condition between the
destruction of the temporary and the execution of `G::operator()()`.
The fix is to simply create the input before creating the thread.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@233946 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
The summary of the bug, provided by Stephan T. Lavavej:
In shared_timed_mutex::try_lock_until() (line 195 in 3.6.0), you need to deliver a notification. The scenario is:
* There are N threads holding the shared lock.
* One thread calls try_lock_until() to attempt to acquire the exclusive lock. It sets the "I want to write" bool/bit, then waits for the N readers to drain away.
* K more threads attempt to acquire the shared lock, but they notice that someone said "I want to write", so they block on a condition_variable.
* At least one of the N readers is stubborn and doesn't release the shared lock.
* The wannabe-writer times out, gives up, and unsets the "I want to write" bool/bit.
At this point, a notification (it needs to be notify_all) must be delivered to the condition_variable that the K wannabe-readers are waiting on. Otherwise, they can block forever without waking up.
Reviewers: mclow.lists, jyasskin
Reviewed By: jyasskin
Subscribers: jyasskin, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8796
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@233944 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Hello Howard,
While running the libc++ tests on our ARM boards, we encounter sporadic failures of the two tests:
test/std/thread/futures/futures.shared_future/wait_until.pass.cpp
test/std/thread/futures/futures.unique_future/wait_until.pass.cpp
The worker thread might not finish yet when the main thread checks its result.
I filed the bug 21998 for this case: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21998
Would you be able to review this please?
Thank you.
Oleg
Reviewers: howard.hinnant, mclow.lists, danalbert, jroelofs, EricWF
Reviewed By: jroelofs, EricWF
Subscribers: EricWF, mclow.lists, aemerson, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6750
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@228783 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
