Find all the usages of `--enable-experimental-feature` or
`--enable-upcoming-feature` in the tests and replace some of the
`REQUIRES: asserts` to use `REQUIRES: swift-feature-Foo` instead, which
should correctly apply to depending on the asserts/noasserts mode of the
toolchain for each feature.
Remove some comments that talked about enabling asserts since they don't
apply anymore (but I might had miss some).
All this was done with an automated script, so some formatting weirdness
might happen, but I hope I fixed most of those.
There might be some tests that were `REQUIRES: asserts` that might run
in `noasserts` toolchains now. This will normally be because their
feature went from experimental to upcoming/base and the tests were not
updated.
Instead, use the `%target-swift-5.1-abi-triple` substitution to compile the tests
for deployment to the minimum OS versions required for use of _Concurrency APIs.
Refactors application classifier to center around substitution map
and strip invertible protocol requirements that have no effect.
Resolves: rdar://123356909
This means that:
1. In test cases where minimal is the default (swift 5 without
-warn-concurrency), I added RUN lines for targeted, complete, and complete +
sns.
2. In test cases where complete is the default (swift 6, -warn-concurrency,
specified complete with -strict-concurrency), I added a send non-sendable run
line.
In each of these cases, I added additional expected-* lines as appropriate so
the tests can compile in each mode successfully.
We now mark some DeclRefExpr and LookupExprs as implicitly async
during typechecking, depending on whether they appear in a context
that is only performing a read / get operation, and whether they
are cross-actor operations.
also resolves rdar://72403401 by improving the error messages
(no more vague "'await' in async context" when its clearly a call!)
The `try await` ordering is both easier to read and indicates the order
of operations better, because the suspension point occurs first and
then one can observe a thrown error.
Currently, we don't have a fix-it to insert 'async', so I've marked those places
as not expecting a fix-it, until someone goes and implements that (rdar://72313654)
when the call in an autoclosure is async and throwing, if the call is covered by a try! or try?,
the existing check that used Context::isAutoClosure was too pessimistic, saying it is not an
autoclosure because errors are handled within it. For the error message about a missing await,
we don't care about whether the throwing-ness was handled.
