[libc++][NFC] Remove unused functions from <__split_buffer>

[philnik777]

No description provided.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-libcxx

Author: Nikolas Klauser (philnik777)

Changes

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115735.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) libcxx/include/__split_buffer (-23)

diff --git a/libcxx/include/__split_buffer b/libcxx/include/__split_buffer
index 2a2f2625c748b2..63ead9b1efd36d 100644
--- a/libcxx/include/__split_buffer
+++ b/libcxx/include/__split_buffer
@@ -139,7 +139,6 @@ public:
   _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI reference back() { return *(__end_ - 1); }
   _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI const_reference back() const { return *(__end_ - 1); }
 
-  _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI void reserve(size_type __n);
   _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI void shrink_to_fit() _NOEXCEPT;
 
   template <class... _Args>
@@ -153,9 +152,6 @@ public:
   _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI void __construct_at_end(size_type __n);
   _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI void __construct_at_end(size_type __n, const_reference __x);
 
-  template <class _InputIter, __enable_if_t<__has_exactly_input_iterator_category<_InputIter>::value, int> = 0>
-  _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI void __construct_at_end(_InputIter __first, _InputIter __last);
-
   template <class _ForwardIterator, __enable_if_t<__has_forward_iterator_category<_ForwardIterator>::value, int> = 0>
   _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI void
   __construct_at_end(_ForwardIterator __first, _ForwardIterator __last);
@@ -260,13 +256,6 @@ __split_buffer<_Tp, _Allocator>::__construct_at_end(size_type __n, const_referen
   }
 }
 
-template <class _Tp, class _Allocator>
-template <class _InputIter, __enable_if_t<__has_exactly_input_iterator_category<_InputIter>::value, int> >
-_LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 void
-__split_buffer<_Tp, _Allocator>::__construct_at_end(_InputIter __first, _InputIter __last) {
-  __construct_at_end_with_sentinel(__first, __last);
-}
-
 template <class _Tp, class _Allocator>
 template <class _Iterator, class _Sentinel>
 _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 void
@@ -414,18 +403,6 @@ _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 void __split_buffer<_Tp, _Allocator>::swap(__split
   std::__swap_allocator(__alloc_, __x.__alloc_);
 }
 
-template <class _Tp, class _Allocator>
-_LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 void __split_buffer<_Tp, _Allocator>::reserve(size_type __n) {
-  if (__n < capacity()) {
-    __split_buffer<value_type, __alloc_rr&> __t(__n, 0, __alloc_);
-    __t.__construct_at_end(move_iterator<pointer>(__begin_), move_iterator<pointer>(__end_));
-    std::swap(__first_, __t.__first_);
-    std::swap(__begin_, __t.__begin_);
-    std::swap(__end_, __t.__end_);
-    std::swap(__end_cap_, __t.__end_cap_);
-  }
-}
-
 template <class _Tp, class _Allocator>
 _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 void __split_buffer<_Tp, _Allocator>::shrink_to_fit() _NOEXCEPT {
   if (capacity() > size()) {

[ldionne]

Can you validate that these methods are unused by e.g. adding a static assertion in them? LGTM if they are truly unused.

I know that std::deque uses this as an implementation detail for mapping segments. Would we benefit from calling reserve in some cases in that implementation?

[philnik777]

Can you validate that these methods are unused by e.g. adding a static assertion in them? LGTM if they are truly unused.

I know that std::deque uses this as an implementation detail for mapping segments. Would we benefit from calling reserve in some cases in that implementation?

I've checked manually and couldn't find any references. If there is a use-case for reserve in deque we can still implement a working version later (the current one is actually broken).