Type annotations for instruction operands are omitted, e.g.
```
%3 = struct $S(%1, %2)
```
Operand types are redundant anyway and were only used for sanity checking in the SIL parser.
But: operand types _are_ printed if the definition of the operand value was not printed yet.
This happens:
* if the block with the definition appears after the block where the operand's instruction is located
* if a block or instruction is printed in isolation, e.g. in a debugger
The old behavior can be restored with `-Xllvm -sil-print-types`.
This option is added to many existing test files which check for operand types in their check-lines.
Closure cycles were originally enforced "conservatively". Real code
does, however, use recursive local functions. And it's surprisingly
easy to create false exclusivity violations in those cases.
This is safe as long as we can rely on SILGen to keep captured
variables in boxes if the capture escapes in any closure that may call
other closures that capture the same variable.
Fixes https://github.com/apple/swift/issues/61404
Dynamic exclusivity checking bug with nested functions. #61404
Fixes rdar://102056143 (assertion failure due to exclusivity checker -
AccessEnforcementSelection should handle recursive local captures)
I am adding this to make it easy to determine if a SILFunction that is not inout
aliasable is captured. This is useful when emitting certain types of
diagnostics like I need to emit with move only.
Handle recursive non-escaping local functions.
Previously, it was thought that recursion would force a closure to be
escaping. This is not necessarilly true.
Update AccessEnforcementSelection to conservatively handle closure cycles.
Fixes rdar://88726092 (Compiler hangs when building)
Remove the compiler support for exclusivity warnings.
Leave runtime support for exclusivity warnings in non-release builds
only for unit testing convenience.
Remove a test case that checked the warning log output.
Modify test cases that relied on successful compilation in the
presence of exclusivity violations.
Fixes: <rdar://problem/45146046> Remaining -swift-version 3 tests for exclusivity
In AccessEnforcementSelection, treat passing a projection from a box to
a partial_apply as an escape to force using dynamic enforcement on the box.
This will now correctly use dynamic enforcement on variables that are taken
as inout and also captured by storage address in a closure:
var x = ...
x.mutatingMethod { ... use x ...}
but does pessimize some of our existing enforcement into dynamic since
access enforcement selection.
Ideally we would distinguish between escaping via an nonescaping closures
(which can only conflict with accesses that are in progress) and
escaping via escaping closures (which can conflict for any reachable code
after the escape)
