Although I don't plan to bring over new assertions wholesale
into the current qualification branch, it's entirely possible
that various minor changes in main will use the new assertions;
having this basic support in the release branch will simplify that.
(This is why I'm adding the includes as a separate pass from
rewriting the individual assertions)
Reformatting everything now that we have `llvm` namespaces. I've
separated this from the main commit to help manage merge-conflicts and
for making it a bit easier to read the mega-patch.
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.
`getValue` -> `value`
`getValueOr` -> `value_or`
`hasValue` -> `has_value`
`map` -> `transform`
The old API will be deprecated in the rebranch.
To avoid merge conflicts, use the new API already in the main branch.
rdar://102362022
Without this, we only considered a protocol refinement rule redundant if
it was derived by directly-stated protocol refinements. But this broke
when completion introduced a 'transitive' refinement [P].[R] => [P]
from two directly-stated refinements [P].[Q] => [P] and [Q].[R] => [Q].
Fixes rdar://problem/90402503.
