them with diagnoseGeneralFailure() which would miss out on the common cases
where the subexpr of the ParenExpr is the issue.
For example, before we would produce:
t.swift:8:8: error: could not find an overload for '&' that accepts the supplied arguments
if !(x & 4.0) {}
~~~^~~~~~
now we produce:
t.swift:8:6: error: binary operator '&' cannot be applied to operands of type 'Int' and 'Double'
if !(x & 4.0) {}
^
t.swift:8:6: note: overloads for '&' exist with these partially matching parameter lists: (Int, Int)
if !(x & 4.0) {}
^
also, remove some special handling for lvalues and inout from overload
diagnostics, which can't matter anymore.
Swift SVN r29661
This makes it clearer that expressions like "foo.myType.init()" are creating new objects, instead of invoking a weird-looking method. The last part of rdar://problem/21375845.
Swift SVN r29375
result in slightly more descriptive diagnostics in some cases. (Specifically,
for diagnostics involving binary operators.)
(rdar://problem/21080030)
Swift SVN r29020
that make vardecls and subscripts immutable. This makes the indirect cases
a lot more specific ("this is a get-only property" instead of "this is
immutable") and allows us to consolidate a bunch of code:
2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)
Swift SVN r28954
which tell you what the problem is, not just that you have one.
- Enhance diagnostics to be more specific about function calls producing
rvalues.
Swift SVN r28939
- <rdar://problem/16306600> QoI: passing a 'let' value as an inout results in an unfriendly diagnostic
- <rdar://problem/16927246> provide a fixit to change "let" to "var" if needing to mutate a variable
We now refer to an inout argument as such, e.g.:
t.swift:7:9: error: cannot pass 'let' value 'a' as inout argument
swap(&a, &b)
^
we also produce a note with a fixit to rewrite let->var in trivial cases where mutation is
being assed for, e.g.:
t.swift:3:3: note: change 'let' to 'var' to make it mutable
let a = 42
^~~
var
The note is produced by both Sema and DI.
Swift SVN r27774
We now produce diagnostics like:
- cannot pass 'let' value 'a' to mutating unary operator '++'
- cannot pass get-only property 'b' to mutating unary operator '++'
- cannot pass immutable value of type 'Int64' to mutating unary operator '++'
Swift SVN r27772
The rule changes are as follows:
* All functions (introduced with the 'func' keyword) have argument
labels for arguments beyond the first, by default. Methods are no
longer special in this regard.
* The presence of a default argument no longer implies an argument
label.
The actual changes to the parser and printer are fairly simple; the
rest of the noise is updating the standard library, overlays, tests,
etc.
With the standard library, this change is intended to be API neutral:
I've added/removed #'s and _'s as appropriate to keep the user
interface the same. If we want to separately consider using argument
labels for more free functions now that the defaults in the language
have shifted, we can tackle that separately.
Fixes rdar://problem/17218256.
Swift SVN r27704
for a member element reference. This improves error recovery and fixes cases where we'd
reject invalid code in unspaced situations (like "(.x)") this fixes rdar://20251513.
Swift SVN r26406
is invalid and produces a ParseError, recovery by producing an AST with an ErrorExpr in it
instead of dropping the initializer on the floor. This silences downstream errors about
"must have an initializer" sorts of stuff.
Swift SVN r26405
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
In r22669, we expanded our parsing of T?? by using operator splitting. This works
great when the ?? is lexed as a postfix operator, but does the wrong thing when the ??
is lexed as an infix and there is whitespace around it. For that, we don't want to
process it as a type. This was reported in a number of places including on stack
overflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28430496/nil-coalescing-to-provide-default-values-in-swift-1-2
Swift SVN r25228
- Situations where the type of a return statement's result expression doesn't line up with the function's type annotation.
- Situations where the type of an initializer expression doesn't line up with its declaration's type pattern.
- Situations where we assume a conversion to a built-in protocol must take place, such as in if-statement conditionals.
(Addresses rdar://problem/19224776, rdar://problem/19422107, rdar://problem/19422156, rdar://problem/19547806 and lots of other dupes.)
Swift SVN r24853
Bitwise operations on Bool are redundant with other logic operations
that stdlib already provides. The only reason to have them was to avoid
branching in the short-circuiting && and ||.
rdar://19340952
Surprisingly, replacing & and | in the standard library with && and ||
brought performance improvements and no significant performance
regressions:
RecursiveOwnedParameter 1.14
SelectionSort 1.19
Swift SVN r24674
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
These changes make the following improvements to how we generate diagnostics for expression typecheck failure:
- Customizing a diagnostic for a specific expression kind is as easy as adding a new method to the FailureDiagnosis class,
and does not require intimate knowledge of the constraint solver’s inner workings.
- As part of this patch, I’ve introduced specialized diagnostics for call, binop, unop, subscript, assignment and inout
expressions, but we can go pretty far with this.
- This also opens up the possibility to customize diagnostics not just for the expression kind, but for the specific types
involved as well.
- For the purpose of presenting accurate type info, partially-specialized subexpressions are individually re-typechecked
free of any contextual types. This allows us to:
- Properly surface subexpression errors.
- Almost completely avoid any type variables in our diagnostics. In cases where they could not be eliminated, we now
substitute in "_".
- More accurately indicate the sources of errors.
- We do a much better job of diagnosing disjunction failures. (So no more nonsensical ‘UInt8’ error messages.)
- We now present reasonable error messages for overload resolution failures, informing the user of partially-matching
parameter lists when possible.
At the very least, these changes address the following bugs:
<rdar://problem/15863738> More information needed in type-checking error messages
<rdar://problem/16306600> QoI: passing a 'let' value as an inout results in an unfriendly diagnostic
<rdar://problem/16449805> Wrong error for struct-to-protocol downcast
<rdar://problem/16699932> improve type checker diagnostic when passing Double to function taking a Float
<rdar://problem/16707914> fatal error: Can't unwrap Optional.None…Optional.swift, line 75 running Master-Detail Swift app built from template
<rdar://problem/16785829> Inout parameter fixit
<rdar://problem/16900438> We shouldn't leak the internal type placeholder
<rdar://problem/16909379> confusing type check diagnostics
<rdar://problem/16951521> Extra arguments to functions result in an unhelpful error
<rdar://problem/16971025> Two Terrible Diagnostics
<rdar://problem/17007804> $T2 in compiler error string
<rdar://problem/17027483> Terrible diagnostic
<rdar://problem/17083239> Mysterious error using find() with Foundation types
<rdar://problem/17149771> Diagnostic for closure with no inferred return value leaks type variables
<rdar://problem/17212371> Swift poorly-worded error message when overload resolution fails on return type
<rdar://problem/17236976> QoI: Swift error for incorrectly typed parameter is confusing/misleading
<rdar://problem/17304200> Wrong error for non-self-conforming protocols
<rdar://problem/17321369> better error message for inout protocols
<rdar://problem/17539380> Swift error seems wrong
<rdar://problem/17559593> Bogus locationless "treating a forced downcast to 'NSData' as optional will never produce 'nil'" warning
<rdar://problem/17567973> 32-bit error message is really far from the mark: error: missing argument for parameter 'withFont' in call
<rdar://problem/17671058> Wrong error message: "Missing argument for parameter 'completion' in call"
<rdar://problem/17704609> Float is not convertible to UInt8
<rdar://problem/17705424> Poor error reporting for passing Doubles to NSColor: extra argument 'red' in call
<rdar://problem/17743603> Swift compiler gives misleading error message in "NSLayoutConstraint.constraintsWithVisualFormat("x", options: 123, metrics: nil, views: views)"
<rdar://problem/17784167> application of operator to generic type results in odd diagnostic
<rdar://problem/17801696> Awful diagnostic trying to construct an Int when .Int is around
<rdar://problem/17863882> cannot convert the expression's type '()' to type 'Seq'
<rdar://problem/17865869> "has different argument names" diagnostic when parameter defaulted-ness differs
<rdar://problem/17937593> Unclear error message for empty array literal without type context
<rdar://problem/17943023> QoI: compiler displays wrong error when a float is provided to a Int16 parameter in init method
<rdar://problem/17951148> Improve error messages for expressions inside if statements by pre-evaluating outside the 'if'
<rdar://problem/18057815> Unhelpful Swift error message
<rdar://problem/18077468> Incorrect argument label for insertSubview(...)
<rdar://problem/18079213> 'T1' is not identical to 'T2' lacks directionality
<rdar://problem/18086470> Confusing Swift error message: error: 'T' is not convertible to 'MirrorDisposition'
<rdar://problem/18098995> QoI: Unhelpful compiler error when leaving off an & on an inout parameter
<rdar://problem/18104379> Terrible error message
<rdar://problem/18121897> unexpected low-level error on assignment to immutable value through array writeback
<rdar://problem/18123596> unexpected error on self. capture inside class method
<rdar://problem/18152074> QoI: Improve diagnostic for type mismatch in dictionary subscripting
<rdar://problem/18242160> There could be a better error message when using [] instead of [:]
<rdar://problem/18242812> 6A1021a : Type variable leaked
<rdar://problem/18331819> Unclear error message when trying to set an element of an array constant (Swift)
<rdar://problem/18414834> Bad diagnostics example
<rdar://problem/18422468> Calculation of constant value yields unexplainable error
<rdar://problem/18427217> Misleading error message makes debugging difficult
<rdar://problem/18439742> Misleading error: "cannot invoke" mentions completely unrelated types as arguments
<rdar://problem/18535804> Wrong compiler error from swift compiler
<rdar://problem/18567914> Xcode 6.1. GM, Swift, assignment from Int64 to NSNumber. Warning shown as problem with UInt8
<rdar://problem/18784027> Negating Int? Yields Float
<rdar://problem/17691565> attempt to modify a 'let' variable with ++ results in typecheck error about @lvalue Float
<rdar://problem/17164001> "++" on let value could give a better error message
Swift SVN r23782
--This line, and those bel that ow, will be ignored--
M test/Parse/optional.swift
M test/ClangModules/Security_test.swift
M test/expr/expressions.swift
M include/swift/AST/DiagnosticsSema.def
M lib/Sema/CSApply.cpp
Swift SVN r23685
This change includes a number of simplifications that allow us to
eliminate the type checker hack that specifically tries
AssertString. Doing so provides a 25% speedup in the
test/stdlib/ArrayNew.swift test (which is type-checker bound).
The specific simplifications here:
- User-level
assert/precondition/preconditionalFailure/assertionFailer/fatalError
always take an autoclosure producing a String, eliminating the need
for the StaticString/AssertString dance.
- Standard-library internal _precondition/_sanityCheck/etc. always
take a StaticString. When we want to improve the diagnostics in the
standard library, we can provide a separate overload or
differently-named function.
- Remove AssertString, AssertStringType, StaticStringType, which are
no longer used or needed
- Remove the AssertString hack from the compiler
- Remove the "BooleanType" overloads of these functions, because
their usefuless left when we stopped making optional types conform
to BooleanType (sorry, should have been a separate patch).
Swift SVN r22139
When the solver has attempted to produce a solution using the default
literal type tha has failed, dont' try every type that conforms to
that literal type. Instead, try the bridged class type (which deals
with the common AnyObject case) or one of two other options:
- For integer literals, try the default floating point type (Double)
- For string literals, try the standard library's AssertString (this
is a temporary hack)
This limits exponential blow-up in cases where the literal's type
cannot be determined from context. Addresses rdar://problem/18307267.
Swift SVN r22131
Trying a collection literal early often means that we can determine
the element type from context, which saves us the work of trying to
guess at the element type firsthand.
Doing this seems to help some cases significantly:
- test/stdlib/ArrayNew.swift got about 20% faster in a release build
- I had to drop the threshold for the "expression too complex" test
case by 20x to still trigger the issue.
Swift SVN r22097
A tuple of lvalues behaves semantically like an lvalue, so for consistency with scalar lvalues, we should diagnose ignored lvalue tuples in offline code, or coerce them to rvalues in REPL or playground contexts, because these contexts really expect rvalues for presentation purposes. Fixes rdar://problem/17057039.
Swift SVN r21549
This allows UnicodeScalars to be constructed from an integer, rather
then from a string. Not only this avoids an unnecessary memory
allocation (!) when creating a UnicodeScalar, this also allows the
compiler to statically check that the string contains a single scalar
value (in the same way the compiler checks that Character contains only
a single extended grapheme cluster).
rdar://17966622
Swift SVN r21198
reserve ? itself as a special token that cannot be defined (protecting ternary, postfix ?,
etc) but add some defensive code to prevent people from defining those operators.
<rdar://problem/17923322> allow ? as a general operator character
Swift SVN r21051
Start capitalizing on some of the new diagnostic machinery in a few different ways:
- When mining constraints for type information, utilize constraints "favored" by the overload resolution process.
- When printing type variables, if the variable was created by opening a literal expression, utilize the literal
default type or conformance if possible.
- Utilize syntactic information when crafting diagnostics:
- If the constraint miner can produce a better diagnostic than the recorded failure, diagnose via constraints.
- Factor in the expression kind when choosing which types to include in a diagnostic message.
- Start customizing diagnostics based on the amount of type data available.
What does all this mean?
- Fewer type variables leaking into diagnostic messages.
- Far better diagnostics for overload resolution failures. Specifically, we now print proper argument type data
for failed function calls.
- No more "'Foo' is not convertible to 'Foo'" error messages
- A greater emphasis on type data means less dependence on the ordering of failed constraints. This means fewer
inscrutable diagnostics complaining about 'UInt8' when all the constituent expressions are of type Float.
So we still have a ways to go, but these changes should greatly improve the number of head-scratchers served up
by the type checker.
These changes address the following radars:
rdar://problem/17618403
rdar://problem/17559042
rdar://problem/17007456
rdar://problem/17559042
rdar://problem/17590992
rdar://problem/17646988
rdar://problem/16979859
rdar://problem/16922560
rdar://problem/17144902
rdar://problem/16616948
rdar://problem/16756363
rdar://problem/16338509
Swift SVN r20927
Change the lexing of '?' to be similar to '!', where we special-case the postfix case for the intrinsic postfix optional operator, but fall back to lexing as an operator when it isn't left-bound. For now, only accept '??' as an operator name--we could easily generalize this, but that warrants discussion first.
Swift SVN r20591
enforce its own little constraints. The type checker isn't using it for
anything, and it is just clutter.
This resolves <rdar://problem/16656024> Remove @assignment from operator implementations
Swift SVN r19960
modifiers and with the func implementations of the operators. This resolves the rest of:
<rdar://problem/17527000> change operator declarations from "operator prefix" to "prefix operator" & make operator a keyword
Swift SVN r19931
eliminating the @'s from them when used on func's. This is progress towards
<rdar://problem/17527000> change operator declarations from "operator prefix" to "prefix operator" & make operator a keyword
This also consolidates rejection of custom operator definitions into one
place and makes it consistent, and adds postfix "?" to the list of rejected
operators.
This also changes the demangler to demangle weak/inout/postfix and related things
without the @.
Swift SVN r19929
