Print diagnostic groups as part of the LLVM printer in the same manner as the
Swift one does, always. Make `-print-diagnostic-groups` an inert option, since we
always print diagnostic group names with the `[#GroupName]` syntax.
As part of this, we no longer render the diagnostic group name as part
of the diagnostic *text*, instead leaving it up to the diagnostic
renderer to handle the category appropriately. Update all of the tests
that were depending on `-print-diagnostic-groups` putting it into the
text to instead use the `{{documentation-file=<file name>}}`
diagnostic verification syntax.
When we encounter unsafe code in `if let x`, we would produce a Fix-It
that would change it to the ill-formed `if let unsafe x`. Improve
tracking of the expressions that are synthesized for the right-hand
side of these conditions, so that we can produce a Fix-It that turns
this into the proper
if let x = unsafe x
Fixes rdar://147944243.
The implementation of `withoutActuallyEscaping` for `@convention(block)`
functions cannot verify at runtime that the function did not actually
escape. Diagnose this as unsafe code under strict memory safety checking.
Fixes rdar://139994149.
Handle call-vs-tuple and subscript-vs-collection-expr disambiguation using the
same "no trivia" rule that we used to disambiguite "unsafe.x" (which we
treat as a member access) from "unsafe .x" (which we treat as an unsafe
expression with a leading-dot member access).
Fixes rdar://146459104.
Disambiguate `unsafe` in a few more common contexts:
* Before a comma in a list of whatever form
* Before a left brace somewhere that we cannot have a closure
Fixes a few more source compatibility regressions found in the wild,
rdar://146125433.
This is a stop-gap solution to prevent spurious warnings when "unsafe"
expressions and for..in loops are used without strict memory safety.
The full answer is probably to determine where unsafe code is all the time,
so that we can still (correctly) diagnose "no unsafe operations" even outside
of strict memory safety mode.
With the acceptance of SE-0458, allow the use of unsafe expressions, the
@safe and @unsafe attributes, and the `unsafe` effect on the for..in loop
in all Swift code.
Introduce the `-strict-memory-safety` flag detailed in the proposal to
enable strict memory safety checking. This enables a new class of
feature, an optional feature (that is *not* upcoming or experimental),
and which can be detected via `hasFeature(StrictMemorySafety)`.
Memory unsafety in the iteration part of the for-in loop (i.e., the part
that works on the iterator) can be covered by the "unsafe" effect on
the for..in loop, before the pattern.
To help older compilers that don't yet support the unsafe expression
deal with the Swift interface files we produce, remove the "unsafe" from
expressions in inlinable code.
Since we infer unsafety from a use of a declaration that involves unsafe types
in its signature, there isn't a reason to require @unsafe on declaration to
restate it. This matches recent revisions of SE-0458.
Warnings about unsafe uses due to an @unsafe IteratorProtocol conformance
(for the implicit call to next()) could not be silenced. Follow the same
path we did for the Sequence conformance (and makeIterator() call) by
associating it with the `unsafe` on the sequence argument.
This isn't the only solution here, but it's a reasonable one.
The implicit reference to the initializer was tripping up the logic
for finding the appropriate place to insert "unsafe", and it was ending
up in the middle of the expression.
When calling an explicitly-@safe function or subscript, or accessing an
explicitly-@safe property, the direct arguments to that operation can be
considered safe if they are references to local variables or are references
to types.
This brings the implementation in line with the recent adjustments to the
proposal within the review.
Check for unsafe conformances for type erasure and opaque type
erasure.
This also uncovered an issue where we were making every conformance of
an unsafe type to an unsafe protocol @unsafe implicitly, even though
that's not really what we want.
