Revert "[STLExtras] Remove incorrect hack to make indexed_accessor_range operator== compatible with C++20"

[usx95]

Reverts #72220

This breaks C++20 build bot. Need to see if upgrading to clang-17 in the build bot would solve the issue.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-adt

Author: Utkarsh Saxena (usx95)

Changes

Reverts llvm/llvm-project#72220

This breaks C++20 build bot. Need to see if upgrading to clang-17 in the build bot would solve the issue.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72265.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h (+9-5)

diff --git a/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h b/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h
index e42b0e8d1b27b71..18bc4d108b156bf 100644
--- a/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h
+++ b/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h
@@ -1291,11 +1291,15 @@ class indexed_accessor_range_base {
   }
 
   /// Compare this range with another.
-  template <typename OtherT> bool operator==(const OtherT &rhs) const {
-    return std::equal(begin(), end(), rhs.begin(), rhs.end());
-  }
-  template <typename OtherT> bool operator!=(const OtherT &rhs) const {
-    return !(*this == rhs);
+  template <typename OtherT>
+  friend bool operator==(const indexed_accessor_range_base &lhs,
+                         const OtherT &rhs) {
+    return std::equal(lhs.begin(), lhs.end(), rhs.begin(), rhs.end());
+  }
+  template <typename OtherT>
+  friend bool operator!=(const indexed_accessor_range_base &lhs,
+                         const OtherT &rhs) {
+    return !(lhs == rhs);
   }
 
   /// Return the size of this range.

[dwblaikie]

Probably the right thing here would've been to commit the revert without sending a pull request.

Specifically, for now, a pull request is a signal that this patch needs review - so committing a sent pull request without approval is an indication of process failure/that code that needed review was committed without review. So, please don't do that (either commit directly if it doesn't need precommit review, or post a pull request and wait for review if it needs precommit review)

[usx95]

Thanks for the clarification. I was not aware of that practice.
FWIW, Github offers to revert a PR with 2-clicks which is extremely convenient (1. create revert PR, 2. merge). If we are not to follow this for LLVM (because PR implies a code review), we should mention not to use this method in the docs

[dwblaikie]

Ah, good to know - I'll see about getting the docs updated.