Simplify and improve the checking of @objc names when matching a
witness to a requirement in the @objc protocol. First, don't use
@objc-ness as part of the initial screening to determine whether a
witness potentially matches an @objc requirement: we will only reject
a potential witness when the potential witness has an explicit
"@nonobjc" attribute on it. Otherwise, the presence of @objc and the
corresponding Objective-C name is checked only after selecting a
candidate. This more closely mirrors what we do for override checking,
where we match based on the Swift names (first) and validate
@objc'ness afterward. It is also a stepping stone to inferring
@objc'ness and @objc names from protocol conformances.
Second, when emitting a diagnostic about a missing or incorrect @objc
annotation, make sure the Fix-It gets the @objc name right: this might
mean adding the Objective-C name along with @objc (e.g.,
"@objc(fooWithString:bar:)"), adding the name to an
unadorned-but-explicit "@objc" attribute, or fixing the name of an
@objc attribute (e.g., "@objc(foo:bar:)" becomes
@objc(fooWithString:bar:)"). Make this diagnostic an error, rather
than a note on a generic "does not conform" diagnostic, so it's much
easier to see the diagnostic and apply the Fix-It.
Third, when emitting the warning about a non-@objc near-match for an
optional @objc requirement, provide two Fix-Its: one that adds the
appropriate @objc annotation (per the paragraph above), and one that
adds @nonobjc to silence the warning.
Part of the QoI improvements for conformances to @objc protocols,
rdar://problem/25159872.
...instead of trying to guess it ourselves.
My previous attempt at this (part of the optional pointers work,
bc83940) made a critical mistake because our only test case /also/
referenced UIApplicationMain directly. I've made the test case test
several more situations, and also added what /would/ be an
execution test if our simulator testing handled UI-based tests.
rdar://problem/25712303
