Arnold fixed this by re-computing the insert position in
getSpecializedConformance(), with
https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/17904.
Fixes rdar://problem/35797159.
This builds on initial commit which added `RelabelArguments` fix
to the solver that only supported `missingLabels` at that moment,
but now it supports all three posibilities - missing/extraneous and
incorrect labels.
* Make _sanityCheck internal
* Make _debugPrecondition internal
* Make Optional._unsafelyUnwrappedUnchecked internal.
* Make _precondition internal
* Switch Foundation _sanityChecks to assertions
* Update file check tests
* Remove one more _debugPrecondition
* Update Optimization-with-check tests
Replace LoggingRangeReplaceableCollection variants with typealiases
Replace LoggingMutableCollection variants with typealiases.
Collapse BufferAccessLoggingMutableCollection variants into typealiases
Turn LoggingRandomAccessCollection into a typealias
Turn LoggingBidirectionalCollection into a typealias
to be stable.
We currently will stop visiting the elements of a disjunction under
certain circumstances once we have found a solution. The result we get
is inherently dependent on the order in which we determine to visit
the disjunctions themselves (in addition to the elements of the
disjunction).
This change makes the order in which we visit disjunctions
stable. Future commits will create a stable ordering for the elements
of disjunctions. Once we also have that stable ordering in place we
can in theory short circuit more often as part of changing the way in
which we decide what the "best" solution is to a system.
This results in an expression in
validation-test/stdlib/AnyHashable.swift.gyb no longer being able to
typecheck in a reasonable amount of time, so I had to tweak that
expression.
On some platforms, when a new process is started, ARC’s autoreleased return value optimization is expected to fail the first time it is used in each linked dylib. StdlibUnittest takes care of warming up ARC for the stdlib (libswiftCore.dylib), but for Dictionary.swift, we also need to do it for Foundation, or there will be spurious leaks reported for tests immediately following a crash test.
Add the necessary dummy operations to setUp, and re-add the crash tests that were removed in #17862. (As separate tests this time, so they don’t hide leaks in non-crashing test parts.)
Removing crash tests fixed optimized test runs, but exposed an issue in unoptimized i386 simulator tests.
Disable the two affected tests until we plug all their holes.
Crashes somehow interfere with object counters in optimized tests, breaking the tests immediately following a crash test.
Remove getObjects:andKeys:count: crash tests for now.
rdar://problem/41871587
These are all tests that would otherwise fail if the expression type
checker support for Swift 3 is removed.
I've moved some of the code from deleted Migrator tests into new
Constraints tests that verify that we do not support the constructs.
AnyHashable.swift.gyb is by far the longest test in debug builds of the test suite. Cut it dramatically shorter by reducing the number of equivalence classes checked in “containing classes from the <foo> hierarchy” tests from 16 down to 3.
(It seems to me the extra test cases didn’t actually test any additional functionality.)
Fix Hashable conformance of standard integer types so that the number of bits they feed into hasher is exactly Self.bitWidth.
This was intended to be part of SE-0206. However, it would have introduced additional issues with AnyHashable. The custom AnyHashable representations introduced in the previous commit unify hashing for numeric types, eliminating the problem.
AnyHashable has numerous edge cases where two AnyHashable values compare equal but produce different hashes. This breaks Set and Dictionary invariants and can cause unexpected behavior and/or traps. This change overhauls AnyHashable's implementation to fix these edge cases, hopefully without introducing new issues.
- Fix transitivity of ==. Previously, comparisons involving AnyHashable values with Objective-C provenance were handled specially, breaking Equatable:
let a = (42 as Int as AnyHashable)
let b = (42 as NSNumber as AnyHashable)
let c = (42 as Double as AnyHashable)
a == b // true
b == c // true
a == c // was false(!), now true
let d = ("foo" as AnyHashable)
let e = ("foo" as NSString as AnyHashable)
let f = ("foo" as NSString as NSAttributedStringKey as AnyHashable)
d == e // true
e == f // true
d == f // was false(!), now true
- Fix Hashable conformance for numeric types boxed into AnyHashable:
b == c // true
b.hashValue == c.hashValue // was false(!), now true
Fixing this required adding a custom AnyHashable box for all standard integer and floating point types. The custom box was needed to ensure that two AnyHashables containing the same number compare equal and hash the same way, no matter what their original type was. (This behavior is required to ensure consistency with NSNumber, which has not been preserving types since SE-0170.
- Add custom AnyHashable representations for Arrays, Sets and Dictionaries, so that when they contain numeric types, they hash correctly under the new rules above.
- Remove AnyHashable._usedCustomRepresentation. The provenance of a value should not affect its behavior.
- Allow AnyHashable values to be downcasted into compatible types more often.
- Forward _rawHashValue(seed:) to AnyHashable box. This fixes AnyHashable hashing for types that customize single-shot hashing.
https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-7496
rdar://problem/39648819
Drop append-related @inlinable annotations for String, StringGuts,
StringStorage, and the Views. Drop several for larger operations, such
as case conversion. Drop as many as we can from StringGuts for now.
With the number of tests Swift does, this had a relatively high chance to fail
regularly somewhere.
Also, rejecting the lower tail means rejecting things that are perfectly
uniform, which I don't think should be the purpose of this test.
I noticed this during testing, but it has nothing to do with the other changes
in this PR. This static violation has always been present as a warning and would
continue to be a warning after my changes.
When Set/Dictionary is nested in another Set, the boundaries of the nested collections weren’t correctly delineated in commutative hashing.
For example, these Sets all hashed the same:
[[1, 2], [3, 4]]
[[1, 3], [2, 4]]
[[1, 4], [2, 3]]
Hash collisions could thus be systematically generated.
To fix this, remove collection-level support for one-shot hashing and revert to the previous method of generating hash values. (Set is still able to support one-shot hashing for its members, though.)
