[libc++][NFC] Simplify std::__destroy_at a bit

[philnik777]

No description provided.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-libcxx

Author: Nikolas Klauser (philnik777)

Changes

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147025.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) libcxx/include/__memory/construct_at.h (+4-7)

diff --git a/libcxx/include/__memory/construct_at.h b/libcxx/include/__memory/construct_at.h
index 21337e766b2d0..b64e64b5a29b0 100644
--- a/libcxx/include/__memory/construct_at.h
+++ b/libcxx/include/__memory/construct_at.h
@@ -12,14 +12,12 @@
 
 #include <__assert>
 #include <__config>
-#include <__iterator/access.h>
 #include <__memory/addressof.h>
 #include <__new/placement_new_delete.h>
 #include <__type_traits/enable_if.h>
 #include <__type_traits/is_array.h>
 #include <__utility/declval.h>
 #include <__utility/forward.h>
-#include <__utility/move.h>
 
 #if !defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_PRAGMA_SYSTEM_HEADER)
 #  pragma GCC system_header
@@ -65,11 +63,10 @@ _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 void __destroy_at(_Tp* __loc
 
 #if _LIBCPP_STD_VER >= 20
 template <class _Tp, __enable_if_t<is_array<_Tp>::value, int> = 0>
-_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 void __destroy_at(_Tp* __loc) {
+_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI constexpr void __destroy_at(_Tp* __loc) {
   _LIBCPP_ASSERT_NON_NULL(__loc != nullptr, "null pointer given to destroy_at");
-  auto const __end = std::end(*__loc);
-  for (auto __it = std::begin(*__loc); __it != __end; ++__it)
-    std::__destroy_at(__it);
+  for (auto&& __val : *__loc)
+    std::__destroy_at(std::addressof(__val));
 }
 #endif
 
@@ -82,7 +79,7 @@ _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 void destroy_at(_Tp* __loc)
 
 #  if _LIBCPP_STD_VER >= 20
 template <class _Tp, enable_if_t<is_array_v<_Tp>, int> = 0>
-_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX20 void destroy_at(_Tp* __loc) {
+_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI constexpr void destroy_at(_Tp* __loc) {
   std::__destroy_at(__loc);
 }
 #  endif

[frederick-vs-ja]

No change requested. I still think we should destroy array elements in reversed order. LWG3889 was submitted for this. But that's not related to this PR yet.