- We switch to a model where let properties may be "initialized", but never
reassigned. Specifically, immutable properties in structs/classes may have
an init value specified in their declaration (but can then never be reset
in any init implementation) or not (in which case they must be initialized
exactly once on all paths through every init. This makes a lot more sense
for immutability, defines several problems away, and provides a path to
supporting things like (rdar://16181314)
- We now *never* default initialize an immutable property. Formerly
we would default initialize optional let properties to nil, but this
isn't actually useful, and allows an error of omission with let
properties.
This resolves: <rdar://problem/19035287> let properties should only be initializable, not reassignable
and possibly other radars.
Swift SVN r23779
Using ObjectIdentifiers on the 32-bit simulator isn't a reliable
comparison method. For the purposes of these tests, it's better to
do a string comparison of the description instead.
rdar://problem/19013004
Swift SVN r23415
This commit decouples StdlibUnittest from many details of
[Contiguous]Array, so tests can give useful feedback even in the
presence of a broken [Contiguous]Array implementation while we refactor.
Unfortunately, it wasn't practical to make _UnitTestArray use a
storage class other than _ContiguousArrayStorage[Base], so we still have
to watch out when making changes there.
Swift SVN r22875
ContiguousArray is a simpler component, thus less prone to breakage.
Builting the unit testing framework atop broken components is a very bad
idea, so let's not.
This is a reinstatement of an earlier commit, plus changes to make the
validation tests work.
Swift SVN r22867
ContiguousArray is a simpler component, thus less prone to breakage.
Builting the unit testing framework atop broken components is a very bad
idea, so let's not.
Swift SVN r22769
The name was not only long and unwieldy, but inconsistent with our
conscious decision to avoid the use of "elements" in APIs as mostly
redundant.
Swift SVN r22408
The previous version of this test was disallowing some thread
interleavings that I did not consider. See comments in the test for
more details.
Swift SVN r22300
Now the SILLinkage for functions and global variables is according to the swift visibility (private, internal or public).
In addition, the fact whether a function or global variable is considered as fragile, is kept in a separate flag at SIL level.
Previously the linkage was used for this (e.g. no inlining of less visible functions to more visible functions). But it had no effect,
because everything was public anyway.
For now this isFragile-flag is set for public transparent functions and for everything if a module is compiled with -sil-serialize-all,
i.e. for the stdlib.
For details see <rdar://problem/18201785> Set SILLinkage correctly and better handling of fragile functions.
The benefits of this change are:
*) Enable to eliminate unused private and internal functions
*) It should be possible now to use private in the stdlib
*) The symbol linkage is as one would expect (previously almost all symbols were public).
More details:
Specializations from fragile functions (e.g. from the stdlib) now get linkonce_odr,default
linkage instead of linkonce_odr,hidden, i.e. they have public visibility.
The reason is: if such a function is called from another fragile function (in the same module),
then it has to be visible from a third module, in case the fragile caller is inlined but not
the specialized function.
I had to update lots of test files, because many CHECK-LABEL lines include the linkage, which has changed.
The -sil-serialize-all option is now handled at SILGen and not at the Serializer.
This means that test files in sil format which are compiled with -sil-serialize-all
must have the [fragile] attribute set for all functions and globals.
The -disable-access-control option doesn't help anymore if the accessed module is not compiled
with -sil-serialize-all, because the linker will complain about unresolved symbols.
A final note: I tried to consider all the implications of this change, but it's not a low-risk change.
If you have any comments, please let me know.
Swift SVN r22215
On some platforms (for example, x86_64), the first call to
`objc_autoreleaseReturnValue` will always autorelease because it would
fail to verify the instruction sequence in the caller. On x86_64
certain PLT entries would be still pointing to the resolver function,
and sniffing the call sequence would fail.
This change adds a "warmup" return-autoreleased sequence to the test
harness.
rdar://18385128
Swift SVN r22127
Expose any, all on Array and all the Lazy sequence adapters. Make the
'contains' algorithm that takes a predecate unavailable in favor of
'any', which does the same thing.
Fixes <rdar://problem/18190149> [algorithm] `contains` syntax is ambiguous
Swift SVN r21810
The syntax being reverted added busywork and noise to the common case
where you want to say "I have the right address, but the wrong type,"
without adding any real safety.
Also it eliminated the ability to write UnsafePointer<T>(otherPointer),
without adding ".self" to T. Overall, it was not a win.
This reverts commits r21324 and r21342
Swift SVN r21424
Previously, it was possible to write Unsafe[Mutable]Pointer(x) and have
Swift deduce the pointee type based on context. Since reinterpreting
memory is a fundamentally type-unsafe operation, it's better to be
explicit about conversions from Unsafe[Mutable]Pointer<T> to
Unsafe[Mutable]Pointer<U>. This change is consistent with the move from
reinterpretCast(x) to unsafeBitCast(x, T.self).
Also, we've encoded the operations of explicitly adding or removing
mutability as properties, so that adding mutability can be separated
from wild reinterpretCast'ing, a much more severe form of unsafety.
Swift SVN r21324
This function mixes the bits in the hash value, which improves Dictionary
performance for keys with bad hashes.
PrecommitBenchmark changes with greater than 7% difference:
``````````Dictionary2`,```1456.00`,```1508.00`,```1502.00`,````624.00`,````607.00`,````592.00`,`864.00`,``145.9%
``````````Dictionary3`,```1379.00`,```1439.00`,```1408.00`,````585.00`,````567.00`,````552.00`,`827.00`,``149.8%
````````````Histogram`,````850.00`,````849.00`,````851.00`,```1053.00`,```1049.00`,```1048.00`,`199.00`,``-19.0%
````````````````Prims`,```1999.00`,```2005.00`,```2018.00`,```1734.00`,```1689.00`,```1701.00`,`310.00`,```18.4%
``````````StrSplitter`,```2365.00`,```2334.00`,```2316.00`,```1979.00`,```1997.00`,```2000.00`,`337.00`,```17.0%
```````````````TwoSum`,```1551.00`,```1568.00`,```1556.00`,```1771.00`,```1741.00`,```1716.00`,`165.00`,```-9.6%
Regressions are in benchmarks that use `Int` as dictionary key: we are just
doing more work than previously (hashing an `Int` was an identity function).
rdar://17962402
Swift SVN r21142
New targets: check-swift-iphonesimulator-{i386,x86_64}. In theory this also
supports check-swift-iphoneos-{armv7,arm64}, but I didn't do any work to
support that (including even copying over what the separate-build tests do).
I'd suggest /not/ running both targets at the same time with Ninja; both
lit processes assume they can use all cores and end up contending for the
CPU and simulator.
Swift SVN r21111
