This removes the C++ interop compat version mechanism. It was added in mid-2023 and was never used. It complicates the testing story, and makes it harder to reason about the compiler's behavior. It also isn't compatible with explicit module builds.
The flag `-cxx-interoperability-mode` is preserved, so projects that use the flag will continue to build normally.
rdar://165919353
Ideally this would also update the `--version` output to be overridden
by `SWIFT_TOOLCHAIN_VERSION`, but unfortunately various tools rely on
the current format (eg. swift-build).
There are scenarios where different compilers are distributed with
compatible serialization format versions and the same tag. Distinguish
swiftmodules in such a case by assigning them to different distribution
channels. A compiler expecting a specific channel will only read
swiftmodules from the same channel. The channels should be defined by
downstream code as it is by definition vendor specific.
For development, a no-channel compiler loads or defining the env var
SWIFT_IGNORE_SWIFTMODULE_REVISION skips this new check.
rdar://123731777
Add a `-min-runtime-version` option that can be used to avoid problems
when building on Linux and Windows where because the runtime isn't
part of the OS, availability doesn't solve the problem of trying to
build the compiler against an older runtime.
Also add functions to IRGen to make it easy to test feature
availability using both the runtime version and the existing Darwin
availability support.
rdar://121522431
This is phase-1 of switching from llvm::Optional to std::optional in the
next rebranch. llvm::Optional was removed from upstream LLVM, so we need
to migrate off rather soon. On Darwin, std::optional, and llvm::Optional
have the same layout, so we don't need to be as concerned about ABI
beyond the name mangling. `llvm::Optional` is only returned from one
function in
```
getStandardTypeSubst(StringRef TypeName,
bool allowConcurrencyManglings);
```
It's the return value, so it should not impact the mangling of the
function, and the layout is the same as `std::optional`, so it should be
mostly okay. This function doesn't appear to have users, and the ABI was
already broken 2 years ago for concurrency and no one seemed to notice
so this should be "okay".
I'm doing the migration incrementally so that folks working on main can
cherry-pick back to the release/5.9 branch. Once 5.9 is done and locked
away, then we can go through and finish the replacement. Since `None`
and `Optional` show up in contexts where they are not `llvm::None` and
`llvm::Optional`, I'm preparing the work now by going through and
removing the namespace unwrapping and making the `llvm` namespace
explicit. This should make it fairly mechanical to go through and
replace llvm::Optional with std::optional, and llvm::None with
std::nullopt. It's also a change that can be brought onto the
release/5.9 with minimal impact. This should be an NFC change.
Basic should not be allowed to link Parse, yet it was doing so
to allow Version to provide a constructor that would conveniently
parse a StringRef. This entrypoint also emitted diagnostics, so it
pulled in libAST.
Sink the version parser entrypoint down into Parse where it belongs
and point all the clients to the right place.
Use only the SWIFT_COMPILER_VERSION macro to check for swiftmodules
being written by the same compiler that reads it. In practice, it's the
macro used for release builds of the compiler.
rdar://96868333
The `SWIFT_COMPILER_VERSION` define is used to stamp a vendor’s version number into a Swift compiler binary. It can be queried from Swift code using `#if _compiler_version` and from Clang by using a preprocessor definition called `__SWIFT_COMPILER_VERSION`. These are unsupported compiler-internal features used primarily by Apple Swift.
In Swift 1.0 through 5.5, Apple Swift used a scheme for `SWIFT_COMPILER_VERSION` where the major version matched the embedded clang (e.g. 1300 for Apple Clang 13.0.0) and the minor version was ignored. Starting in Swift 5.6, Apple Swift started using major and minor version numbers that matched the Swift.org version number. This makes them easier to understand, but it means that version 1300.0.x was followed by version 5.6.x. Not only did version numbers go backwards, but also the old logic to ignore minor versions was now a liability, because it meant you would not be able to target a change to 5.7.x compilers but not 5.6.x compilers.
This commit addresses the problem by:
* Modifying the existing `#if _compiler_version(string-literal)` feature so it transforms the major version into a major and minor that will compare correctly to new version numbers. For instance, “1300.*” is transformed into “1.300”, which will compare correctly to a “5.6” or “5.7” version even if it doesn’t really capture the fact that “1300” was a Swift 5.5 compiler. As a bonus, this allows you to use the feature to backwards-compatibly test new compilers using the existing feature: “5007.*” will be seen by compilers before 5.7 as an unknown future version, but will be seen by 5.7 compilers as targeting them.
* Modifying the `__SWIFT_COMPILER_VERSION` clang define similarly so that, to preprocessor conditions written for the old scheme, a 5.7 compiler will appear to have major version 5007.
* Adding a new variant of `#if _compiler_version` with the same syntax as `#if swift` and `#if compiler`—that is, taking a comparison operator and a bare set of dotted version numbers, rather than a string literal. Going forward, this will be how version checks are written once compatibility with compilers before this change is no longer a concern.
These changes are only lightly tested because tests have to work without any compiler version defined (the default in most configurations), but I’ve tested what I can.
Fixes rdar://89841295.
The `std::array` definition used to be included transitively through
VersionTuple.h -> DenseMapInfo.h -> ArrayRef.h -> array. DenseMapInfo.h
was cleaned up, removing the include of ArrayRef.h. We initialize a
template Instantiation of the array, so we need the definition.
We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
Until now, only ">=" was supported in #if swift() expressions, for example:
```#if swift(>=2.1)
```#endif
This means that if we want to evaluate code only when the language version is
less than a particular version we need to do the following:
```#if !swift(>=2.1)
```#endif
An alernative to make this more readable (the "!" can be easily missed in a code
review) is to introduce another supported unary operator, "<". The previous
example could be rewritten like this:
```#if swift(<2.1)
```#endif
This commit adds support for that unary operator, along with some tests.
LLVM r334399 (and related Clang changes) moved clang::VersionTuple to
llvm::VersionTuple. Update Swift to match.
Patch by Jason Molenda.
rdar://problem/41025046
The etymology of these terms isn't about race, but "black" = "blocked"
and "white" = "allowed" isn't really a good look these days. In most
cases we weren't using these terms particularly precisely anyway, so
the rephrasing is actually an improvement.
Recently support was added for '-swift-version 5' to the frontend.
Right now we only have an isSwiftVersion3() check which returns 'true'
if the version is 3, and returns 'false' if it is 4 or 5. This was used
during Swift 4.0 development to guard various legacy behaviors that we
wish to deprecate.
Going forward, when do not want to add isSwiftVersion4() and
isSwiftVersion5() checks, because they're too fragile; if a new
behavior is introduced in Swift 5 that we wish to disable in Swift 3
and Swift 4 mode, checking for isSwiftVersion5() is insufficient,
because eventually Swift 6 will roll around, and presumably one would
expect the new behavior to take effect in Swift 6 mode as well.
I think a better solution is a 'isSwiftVersionAtLeast()' check, which
checks if the major version number is greater than or equal to the
given value.
We could refactor the existing 'isSwiftVersion3()' checks to instead
do '!isSwiftVersionAtLeast(4)', but I'm going to hold off on doing that
for now.
Deserializing a witness record in a conformance may fail if either of the requirement or witness changed name or type, most likely due to SDK modernization changes across Swift versions. When this happens, leave an opaque placeholder in the conformance to indicate that the witness exists but we don't get to see it. For expedience, right now this just witnesses the requirement to itself, so that code in the type checker or elsewhere that tries to ad-hoc devirtualize references to the requirement just gets the requirement back. Arguably, we shouldn't include the witness at all in imported conformances, since they should be an implementation detail, but that's a bigger, riskier change. This patch as is should be enough to address rdar://problem/31185053.
Fixes:
https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3455https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3663https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4032https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4031
Now, compilation conditions are validated at first, then evaluated. Also,
in non-Swift3 mode, '&&' now has higher precedence than '||'.
'A || B && C || D' are evaluated as 'A || (B && C) || D'.
Swift3 source breaking changes:
* [SR-3663] This used to be accepted and evaluate to 'true' because of short
circuit without any validation.
#if true || true * 12 = try Anything is OK?
print("foo")
#endif
In this change, remaining expressions are properly validated and
diagnosed if it's invalid.
* [SR-4031] Compound name references are now diagnosed as errors.
e.g. `#if os(foo:bar:)(macOS)` or `#if FLAG(x:y:)`
Swift3 compatibility:
* [SR-3663] The precedence of '||' and '&&' are still the same and the
following code evaluates to 'true'.
#if false || true && false
print("foo")
#endif
Put in a general mechanism for mapping user-specified "compatibility
versions" to proper "effective versions" (what #if and @available
checking should respect). This may still be different from the
intrinsic "language version"; right now master is considered a "3.1"
compiler with a "Swift 4 mode", and we plan to ship a "4.0" compiler
with a "Swift 3 mode" that will have a version number of something
like "3.2".
rdar://problem/29884401 / SR-3791
The recent @escaping on variadic argument closures back-compat fix is
the first Swift 3.0 compatibility behavior that we don't want to carry
forwards indefinitely into the future. To address this, we
version-gate the diagnostic suppression.
Makes it an official compatibility check. Creates new test directory
for compatibility testing. Allow -swift-version 4 so that we can test
it both ways.
This flag switches the "effective language version" of the compiler,
at least to any version supported (as of this change: "3" or "3.0").
At the moment nothing uses it except the language version build
configuration statements (#if swift(...)) and various other places
that report, encode, or otherwise check version numbers.
In the future, it's intended as scaffolding for backwards compatibility.
Fixes SR-2582
...with a better message than the generic "older version of the
compiler" one, when we know it's actually a different version of
Swift proper.
This still uses the same internal module version numbers to check
if the module is compatible; the presentation of language versions
is a diagnostic thing only.
Speaking of module version numbers, this deliberately does NOT
increment VERSION_MINOR; it's implemented in a backwards-compatible
way.
This will only work going forwards, of course; all existing modules
don't have a short version string, and I don't feel comfortable
assuming all older modules we might encounter are "Swift 2.2".
rdar://problem/25680392
- Added missing ifdef guard in PointerIntEnum header
- Consistent naming convention for ifdef guards
- Consistent 'end namespace swift'
- Consistent single EOL at end of header files
...because "build configuration" is already the name of an Xcode feature.
- '#if' et al are "conditional compilation directives".
- The condition is a "conditional compilation expression", or just
"condition" if it's obvious.
- The predicates are "platform conditions" (including 'swift(>=...)')
- The options set with -D are "custom conditional compilation flags".
(Thanks, Kevin!)
I left "IfConfigDecl" as is, as well as SourceKit's various "BuildConfig"
settings because some of them are part of the SourceKit request format.
We can change these in follow-up commits, or not.
rdar://problem/19812930
