The patch introduces a new setting instead of changing existing settings
because the generated interfaces in the IDE have slightly different
requirements; the extended type there is unconditionally not printed
qualified (even if it is ambiguous). This is likely because the
ambiguity heuristic is very weak; it doesn't even do name lookup.
Simplifying that logic would be nice, but then we'd need to update
a bunch of IDE/print* tests and end up with more more visual clutter
in the IDE.
Introducing the new setting means we can change the behavior for
swiftinterface files without affecting the behavior for IDE interfaces.
Fixes rdar://79093752.
...and remove the option. This is ~technically~ CLI-breaking because
Swift 5 shipped this as a hidden driver option, but it wouldn't have
/done/ anything in Swift 5, so I think it's okay to remove.
Note that if a parseable interface (.swiftinterface) and a binary
interface (.swiftmodule) are both present, the binary one will still
be preferred. This just /allows/ parseable interfaces to be used.
rdar://problem/36885834
We were checking the parent invocation's DiagnosticEnginer rather than the
subinstance's to determine if there were any errors building the module, which
meant we would fail to load the module if there were errors prior to the import
statement in the importing file.
This also meant code completion would fail to load the module, because it always
emits a bogus error in order to mark the AST as erroneous so that different
parts of the compiler (e.g. the verifier) have less strict assumptions.
rdar://problem/43906499
We were checking the parent invocation's DiagnosticEnginer rather than the
subinstance's to determine if there were any errors building the module, which
meant we would fail to load the module if there were errors prior to the import
statement in the importing file.
This also meant code completion would fail to load the module, because it always
emits a bogus error in order to mark the AST as erroneous so that different
parts of the compiler (e.g. the verifier) have less strict assumptions.
rdar://problem/43906499
