Macro expansion buffers, along with other generated source buffers,
need more precise "original source ranges" that can be had with the
token-based `SourceRange`. Switch over to `CharSourceRange` and provide
more thoughtfully-determined original source ranges.
If a module was first read using the adjacent swiftmodule and then
reloaded using the swiftinterface, we would do an up to date check on
the adjacent module but write out the unit using the swiftinterface.
This would cause the same modules to be indexed repeatedly for the first
invocation using a new SDK. On the next run we would instead raad the
swiftmodule from the cache and thus the out of date check would match
up.
The impact of this varies depending on the size of the module graph in
the initial compilation and the number of jobs started at the same time.
Each SDK dependency is re-indexed *and* reloaded, which is a drain on
both CPU and memory. Thus, if many jobs are initially started and
they're all going down this path, it can cause the system to run out of
memory very quickly.
Resolves rdar://103119964.
Running the SourceKit stress tester with verification of solver-based cursor info returned quite a few differences but in all of them, the old AST-based implementation was actually incorrect. So, instead of verifying the results, deliver the results from solver-baesd cursor info and only fall back to AST-based cursor info if the solver-based implementation returned no results.
rdar://103369449
This implements cursor info resolving for a few expression types using the constraint system. This allows us to detect ambiguous results – we cannot deliver them yet but that will be done in a follow-up PR.
The main problem that prevented us from reusing the ASTContext was that we weren’t remapping the `LocToResolve` in the temporary buffer that only contains the re-parsed function back to the original buffer. Thus `NodeFinder` couldn’t find the node that we want to get cursor info for.
Getting AST reuse to work for top-level items is harder because it currently heavily relies on the `HasCodeCompletion` state being set on the parser result. I’ll try that in a follow-up PR.
rdar://103251263
This allows us to mark expected deviations between the AST-based and the solver-based implementation in the stress tester as XFails without breaking actual clients
We always verify if a cursor info request is issued through `sourcekitd-test`.
Use the std-equivalent names as the LLVM ones are now deprecated
(eventually `llvm::Optional` will disappear):
- `getValue` -> `value`
- `getValueOr` -> `value_or`
- `hasValue` -> `has_value`
Follow up from ab1b343dad and
7d8bf37e5e with some missing cases.
Update rename to pull the outermost-declaration so that references are correctly found.
Rather than keeping suppressed locations in the current parent, keep
them for the whole index. Local rename starts the lookup from the
innermost context it can, which could be a closure. In that case there
is no parent decl on the stack and thus no where to store the locations
to suppress. We could have a specific store for this case, but there
shouldn't be that many of these and they're relatively cheap to store
anyway.
Resolves rdar://104568539.
This new version takes the path to the compiler executable as a parameter, in order for libSwiftScan to compute compiler-relative portions of runtimeLibraryPaths, runtimeResourcePath. V1, without knowing the path to the compiler executable, produced incomplete sets of these paths.
'sourcekitd' itself should not call 'swift::' functions. It should just
deserialize the request, execute the logic in LangSupport, then serialize
the result.
Previously no API returned a raw 'swiftscan_string_ref_t' directly so this was not needed.
However, 'swiftscan_compiler_target_info_query' returns a string directly, which the clients need to clean up.
Previously, SourceKit requests are handled in a single
'handleRequestImpl'/'handleSemanticRequest' with basically a giant
'if (ReqUID == RequstXXX)' branches. Some request parameters are
extracted at the top of the function, but not all request kind used all
of them.
Factor out each handling logic to its own function, and check/extract
request parameters in it. This makes it clear that which request uses
what parameters, and how they are handled.
