These are tests that fail in the next commit without this flag. This
does not add -verify-ignore-unrelated to all tests with -verify, only
the ones that would fail without it. This is NFC since this flag is
currently a no-op.
This is a new feature of Swift 5 mode, so it deserves at least a
little bit of explanation right in the diagnostic. If you have an
otherwise-fully-covered switch but can't assume the enum is frozen,
you'll now get this message:
switch covers known cases, but 'MusicGenre' may have additional
unknown values
Furthermore, if the enum comes from a system header, it looks like
this:
switch covers known cases, but 'NSMusicGenre' may have additional
unknown values, possibly added in future versions
...to further suggest the idea that even though your switch is covered
/now/, it might not handle everything in the /future/. This extra bit
is limited to system headers to avoid showing up on C enums defined in
your own project, for which it sounds silly. (The main message is
still valid though, since you can cram whatever you want into a C
enum, and people use this pattern to implement "private cases".)
rdar://problem/39367045
This enables additional tests for the ClangImporter. This found a
missing piece in the `-enable-objc-interop` work that was done
previously. Address that and enable the tests. There are now the
following failing tests on Linux:
* sdk - depends on Foundation (not hermetic, see SR-7572)
* mixed-nsuinteger - depends on Foundation (not hermetic, see SR-7572)
* import-mixed-with-header-twice - requires apple/swift PR#16022
* can_import_objc_idempotent - requires apple/swift PR#16022
* objc_protocol_renaming - requires apple/swift PR#16022
The first half of Sema support for '@unknown'. The other part is
handling when the user /does/ write '@unknown', which results in
/other/ things being downgraded to warnings.
The diagnostics here are still pretty minimal; they should explain
what's going on with '@unknown' to someone who hasn't read the Swift 5
release notes.
This would fail later down the line anyway, meaning this does not
change the ultimate behavior of the importer, but since I added an
assertion that we're expecting a definition here in 2c68f8d49d, we
need to avoid even asking the question.
Also fix up a few other places where we aren't sure we'll have a
definition when calling these functions.
rdar://problem/33784466
