var/let bindings to _ when they are never used, and use some values that
are only written. This is a testsuite cleanup, NFC. More to come.
Swift SVN r28406
Previously, a multi-pattern var/let decl like:
var x = 4, y = 17
would produce two pattern binding decls (one for x=4 one for y=17). This is convenient
in some ways, but is bad for source reproducibility from the ASTs (see, e.g. the improvements
in test/IDE/structure.swift and test/decl/inherit/initializer.swift).
The hardest part of this change was to get parseDeclVar to set up the AST in a way
compatible with our existing assumptions. I ended up with an approach that forms PBDs in
more erroneous cases than before. One downside of this is that we now produce a spurious
"type annotation missing in pattern"
diagnostic in some cases. I'll take care of that in a follow-on patch.
Swift SVN r26224
(Note that this registry isn't fully enabled yet; it's built so that
we can test it, but has not yet taken over the primary task of
managing conformances from the existing system).
The conformance registry tracks all of the protocols to which a
particular nominal type conforms, including those for which
conformance was explicitly specified, implied by other explicit
conformances, inherited from a superclass, or synthesized by the
implementation.
The conformance registry is a lazily-built data structure designed for
multi-file support (which has been a problematic area for protocol
conformances). It allows one to query for the conformances of a type
to a particular protocol, enumerate all protocols to which a type
conforms, and enumerate all of the conformances that are associated
with a particular declaration context (important to eliminate
duplicated witness tables).
The conformance registry diagnoses conflicts and ambiguities among
different conformances of the same type to the same protocol. There
are three common cases where we'll see a diagnostic:
1) Redundant explicit conformance of a type to a protocol:
protocol P { }
struct X : P { }
extension X : P { } // error: redundant explicit conformance
2) Explicit conformance to a protocol that collides with an inherited
conformance:
protocol P { }
class Super : P { }
class Sub : Super, P { } // error: redundant explicit conformance
3) Ambiguous placement of an implied conformance:
protocol P1 { }
protocol P2 : P1 { }
protocol P3 : P1 { }
struct Y { }
extension Y : P2 { }
extension Y : P3 { } // error: ambiguous implied conformance to 'P1'
This happens when two different explicit conformances (here, P2 and
P3) placed on different declarations (e.g., two extensions, or the
original definition and other extension) both imply the same
conformance (P1), and neither of the explicit conformances imply
each other. We require the user to explicitly specify the ambiguous
conformance to break the ambiguity and associate the witness table
with a specific context.
Swift SVN r26067
Also, if warning about an accessor that comes from a stored property,
point to the property rather than the (implicit, source-location-less)
accessor decl.
Both of these changes are aimed at improving the presentation in Xcode.
rdar://problem/19927828
Swift SVN r25725
Always perform override checking based on the Swift type
signatures, rather than alternately relying on the Objective-C
selectors. This ensures that we get consistent override behavior for
@objc vs. non-@objc declarations throughout, and we separately make
sure that the Objective-C names line up.
This also allows us to inherit @objc'ness correctly (which didn't
quite work before), including inferring the Objective-C selector/name
(the actual subject of rdar://problem/18998564).
Fixes rdar://problem/18998564.
Swift SVN r25392
Instead, just check the generic parameters, then do a lookup as usual in the
enclosing context.
Fixes crash suite #58 and quite a few others (~200). This looks way more
impressive than it is; in most of these test cases it's the exact same
pattern causing the crash, and that pattern was just the last outstanding
crash trigger in a sea of garbage. (The few deleted tests were identical
to #58.)
Swift SVN r24748
Most tests were using %swift or similar substitutions, which did not
include the target triple and SDK. The driver was defaulting to the
host OS. Thus, we could not run the tests when the standard library was
not built for OS X.
Swift SVN r24504
Rather than just saying "'Foo' is not constructible with '()'", say
"'Foo' cannot be constructed because it has no accessible initializers",
which would help framework authors realize what they did wrong.
<rdar://problem/17717714>
Swift SVN r20232
If a subclass defines no subobject initializers and all of its stored
properties have initial values, "inherit" all of the subobject
initializers of its superclass by creating a new initializer with the
same signature that overrides (and chains to) the corresponding
subobject initializer of its parent. Do this instead of blindly
creating a default initializer.
Note that we aren't yet doing this for generic initializers. That will
be a separate step.
Swift SVN r14995
There's a lot more work to do here, but start to categorize tests
along the lines of what a specification might look like, with
directories (chapters) for basic concepts, declarations, expressions,
statements, etc.
Swift SVN r9958
