This change introduces a Json format change where we always print fully
qualified type names everywhere. This is beneficial for diagnosing purposes but
may not be ideal for generating migrator scripts. To resolve this conflict, the
patch also introduces a flag -migrator to opt-out fully qualified type names.
After the format change, we need to update the ABI and API baselines for the
Swift stdlib.
* Revert "Add availability information to the new Math function protocols (#24187)"
This reverts commit d2f695935f.
* Revert "SE-0246: Protocols and static functions (#23824)"
This reverts commit 57a4553832.
* Expected abi changes.
Without this change, SILGen will crash when compiling a use of the
derived protocol's requirement: it will instead attempt to use
the base protocol's requirement, but the code will have been
type-checked incorrectly for that.
This has a potential for source-compatibility impact if anyone's
using explicit override checking for their protocol requirements:
reasonable idioms like overriding a mutating requirement with a
non-mutating one will no longer count as an override. However,
this is arguably a bug-fix, because the current designed intent
of protocol override checking is to not allow any differences in
type, even "covariant" changes like making a mutating requirement
non-mutating. Moreover, we believe explicit override checking in
protocols is quite uncommon, so the overall compatibility impact
will be low.
This also has a potential for ABI impact whenever something that
was once an override becomes a non-override and thus requires a
new entry. It might require a contrived test case to demonstrate
that while using the derived entry, but it's quite possible to
imagine a situation where the derived entry is not used directly
but nonetheless has ABI impact.
Furthermore, as part of developing this patch (earlier versions of
which used stricter rules in places), I discovered a number of
places where the standard library was unintentionally introducing
a new requirement in a derived protocol when it intended only to
guide associated type deduction. Fixing that (as I have in this
patch) *definitely* has ABI impact.
* Make SIMD types codable. We're considering this a bugfix.
This is a very tiny ABI change, in that user-defined SIMD types compiled with an earlier version of 5.0 will be missing the necessary conformance to Codable. Discussed with Ben, and we're OK with this because we don't think there are such types yet, and it can be fixed with a recompile.
* Add basic tests
The standard library has two versions of the `abs(_:)` function:
```
func abs<T : SignedNumeric>(_ x: T) -> T where T.Magnitude == T
func abs<T : SignedNumeric & Comparable>(_ x: T) -> T
```
The first is more specialized than the second because `T.Magnitude` is
known to conform to `Comparable`. Indeed, it’s a more specialized
implementation that returns `magnitude`.
However, this overload behaves oddly: in the expression `abs(-8)`, the type
checker will pick the first overload because it is more specialized. That’s
a general guiding principle for overloading: pick the most specialized
overload that works.
However, to select that overload, it needs to pick a type for the literal
“8” for which that overload works, and it chooses `Double`. The “obvious”
answer, `Int`, doesn’t work because `Int.Magnitude == UInt`.
There is a conflict between the two rules, here: we prefer more-specialized
overloads (but we’ll fall back to less-specialized if those don’t work) and we prefer to use `Int` for integer literals (but we’ll fall back to `Double` if it doesn’t work). We have a few options from a type-checker
perspective:
1. Consider the more-specialized-function rule to be more important
2. Consider the integer-literals-prefer-`Int` rule to be more important
3. Call the result ambiguous and make the user annotate it
The type checker currently does #1, although at some point in the past it
did #2. Moving forward, #1 is a better choice because it prunes the number
of overloads that need to be considered: if the more-specialized overload
succeeds its type-check, the others need not be considered. It’s also
easier to reason about than the literal-scoring approach, because there can
be a direct definition for “more specialized than” that can be reasoned
about.
I think we should dodge the issue by removing the more-specialized version
of `abs(_:)`. Its use of `magnitude` seems unlikely to provide a
significant performance benefit, and the presence of overloading either
forces us to consider both overloads always (which is bad for type checker
performance) or accept the regression that `abs(-8)` is `Double`. Better
to eliminate the overloading and, if needed in the future, find a better
way to introduce the more-specialized implementation without it being a
separate signature.
Fixes rdar://problem/42345366.
Associated type inference can synthesize type aliases with the same name
as a generic parameter. This is all fine since the underlying type of
the alias is the generic parameter type, however it might have been
synthesized in a constrained extension, resulting in bogus diagnostics
that depend on the order in which declarations are type checked, which
can vary between WMO and non-WMO, different batch mode settings, etc.
Instead, let's just check the generic parameter list first.
Fixes <rdar://problem/22587551>, <rdar://problem/44777661>.
If we use a baseline generated from assertion build, the checker will report false-positives
when running in a non-assertion build since some decls only exist in the former.
resolves: rdar://45014723
