Simple checks for the presence of a protocol in the “inherited” list should only
require a scan through that list + name lookup; use those facilities instead of
recursing through the type checker.
Introduce ExtensionDecl::getExtendedNominal() to provide the nominal
type declaration that the extension declaration extends. Move most
of the existing callers of the callers to getExtendedType() over to
getExtendedNominal(), because they don’t need the full type information.
ExtensionDecl::getExtendedNominal() is itself not very interesting yet,
because it depends on getExtendedType().
In Swift 3 mode, the canonical private DeclContext should
not look through extensions.
The only way I can reproduce this is with a missing warning
and we don't really care about missing warnings in Swift 3 mode.
However, the next patch in this PR regresses more things so
let's fix it properly.
If an extension refers to a generic typealias that has yet to resolve to
a fully-sugared type, look through the underlying type.
Fixes rdar://problem/39023438.
This function was unable to "look through" an unbound generic typealias to
find the underlying nominal type that was getting extended, which can occur
if we end up performing a name lookup into this context before the extension
itself has been fully-checked.
Also, test that extending DictionaryIndex works.
Adding getAsGenericContext() cleans up some code, and improves the
Swift.swiftmodule build time by almost half a percent on LLVM
top-of-tree and with a simulated fix for LLVM PR35909.
This has three principal advantages:
- It gives some additional type-safety when working
with known accessors.
- It makes it significantly easier to test whether a declaration
is an accessor and encourages the use of a common idiom.
- It saves a small amount of memory in both FuncDecl and its
serialized form.
We want stored property initializers of fixed layout structs to be
inlinable, so that inlinable initializers can be fully eliminated
by the optimizer.
This is the first step in fixing <rdar://problem/36454839>.
DeclContexts as they exist today are "over aligned" when compared to
their natural alignment boundary and therefore they can easily cause
adjacent padding when dropped into the middle of objects via C++
inheritance, or when the clang importer prefaces Swift AST allocations
with a pointer to the corresponding clang AST node.
With this change, we move DeclContexts to the front of the memory layout
of AST nodes. This allows us to restore natural alignment, save memory,
and as a side effect: more easily avoid "over alignment" in the future
because DeclContexts now only need to directly track which AST node
hierarchy they're associated with, not specific AST nodes within each
hierarchy.
Finally, as a word of caution, after this change one can no longer
assume that AST nodes safely convert back and forth with "void*". For
example, WitnessTableEntry needed fixing with this change.
Being part of the type of a private declaration isn't sufficient,
because that could be used for the inferred type of a non-private
variable/constant/property.
Also, introduce a new kind of dependency test that shows both that a
file A changes its interface based on a change in another file B, and
that the swiftdeps output for file A includes the dependency on file B
as cascading.
https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-6149
Previously we stored this inside each default argument
initializer context. This was overkill, because it is
the same for all default arguments in a single function,
and also insufficient, because initializer contexts are
not serialized and thus not available in SILGen when
the function is in a different module.
Instead store it directly inside the function and
serialize it.
NFC for now, since SILGen isn't using this yet.
"Accessibility" has a different meaning for app developers, so we've
already deliberately excised it from our diagnostics in favor of terms
like "access control" and "access level". Do the same in the compiler
now that we aren't constantly pulling things into the release branch.
Rename AccessibilityAttr to AccessControlAttr and
SetterAccessibilityAttr to SetterAccessAttr, then track down the last
few uses of "accessibility" that don't have to do with
NSAccessibility. (I left the SourceKit XPC API alone because that's
supposed to be more stable.)
"Accessibility" has a different meaning for app developers, so we've
already deliberately excised it from our diagnostics in favor of terms
like "access control" and "access level". Do the same in the compiler
now that we aren't constantly pulling things into the release branch.
This commit changes the 'Accessibility' enum to be named 'AccessLevel'.
Rather than pretend that the requirement signature of a protocol is a
full, well-formed generic signature that one can meaningfully query,
treat it as a flat set of requirements. Nearly all clients already did
this, but make it official. NFC
The -enable-testing flag makes ValueDecl::getEffectiveAccess()
say that internal declarations are public.
This would lead us to emit spurious diagnostics if a default
argument of an internal function referenced a private symbol,
for example, which is something we actually want to allow.
This is a second revision of the patch -- instead of changing
getEffectiveAccess() to take an extra parameter, this changes
getFormalAccessScope() instead.
Fixes <rdar://problem/32592973>.
The -enable-testing flag makes ValueDecl::getEffectiveAccess()
say that internal declarations are public.
This would lead us to emit spurious diagnostics if a default
argument of an internal function referenced a private symbol,
for example, which is something we actually want to allow.
Hack around this by adding a new 'forLinkage' parameter to
getEffectiveAccess(). When this is false, we ignore the
-enable-testing flag, and only look for the @_versioned
attribute.
I'm not very happy with the fix, because it only compliates
the subtle behaviors of getFormalAccess(), getEffectiveAccess()
and getFormalAccessScope() further. But refactoring this is
a bigger change than I'm willing to put into swift-4.0-branch.
Fixes <rdar://problem/32592973>.
