The storage kind has been replaced with three separate "impl kinds",
one for each of the basic access kinds (read, write, and read/write).
This makes it far easier to mix-and-match implementations of different
accessors, as well as subtleties like implementing both a setter
and an independent read/write operation.
AccessStrategy has become a bit more explicit about how exactly the
access should be implemented. For example, the accessor-based kinds
now carry the exact accessor intended to be used. Also, I've shifted
responsibilities slightly between AccessStrategy and AccessSemantics
so that AccessSemantics::Ordinary can be used except in the sorts of
semantic-bypasses that accessor synthesis wants. This requires
knowing the correct DC of the access when computing the access strategy;
the upshot is that SILGenFunction now needs a DC.
Accessor synthesis has been reworked so that only the declarations are
built immediately; body synthesis can be safely delayed out of the main
decl-checking path. This caused a large number of ramifications,
especially for lazy properties, and greatly inflated the size of this
patch. That is... really regrettable. The impetus for changing this
was necessity: I needed to rework accessor synthesis to end its reliance
on distinctions like Stored vs. StoredWithTrivialAccessors, and those
fixes were exposing serious re-entrancy problems, and fixing that... well.
Breaking the fixes apart at this point would be a serious endeavor.
Several different places in the codebase synthesize IntegerLiteralExprs from computed unsigned variables; each one requires several lines of code and does things slightly differently. Write one central helper method to handle this.
A static reference to DynamicSelfType can only be written as an
implicit member expression where the contextual type is a
DynamicSelfType, ie, 'return .init(...)' in a static method
returning Self.
In this case, the base expression is not a statically-derived
metatype.
These warnings are turning out to be pretty noisy for code that
declares IUOs (e.g. for @IBOutlets) and then passes them to
Objective-C APIs with parameters declared as _Nonnull id.
Since we bridge non-nil values successfully in most cases, and
previuosly written and correctly executing code is either not seeing
nil values passed in or are handling the nil (which is bridged as
NSNull), it seems like a nuisance to warn about these for existing
Swift versions.
We'll conditionalize the warning, and then users can deal with these
when moving to the new language version.
Fixes: rdar://problem/39886178
Fixes a crash for SourceEntityWalker which assumed that a non-implicit TupleExpr has source locations for its name elements.
Fixes SR-6517, rdar://35830880
This expression node is only used when applying the results of
expression type checking. It initially appears above the function
reference that returns an optional that needs to be unwrapped, and
then when dealing with function application we remove this and insert
a node to force-unwrap the result of the function application.
The base mutability of storage is part of the signature, so be sure
to compute that during validation. Also, serialize it as part of
the storage declaration, and fix some places that synthesize
declarations to set it correctly.
Integer and Floating literals are aware of their negation but
do not store the sign in the text of the value. Retrieve the
sign bit and properly interpolate the text of the literal value
with it to distinguish negative and positive literals.
Also, begin to pass around base types instead of raw InOutType types. Ideally, only Sema needs to deal with them, but this means that a bunch of callers need to unwrap any inouts that might still be lying around before forming these types.
Multiple parts of the compiler were slicing, dicing, or just dropping these flags. Because I intend to use them for the new function type representation, I need them to be preserved all across the compiler. As a first pass, this stubs in what will eventually be structural rules as asserts and tracks down all callers of consequence to conform to the new invariants.
This is temporary.
If we fail when doing a coercion while generating an OpenExistentialExpr
when applying a solution during type checking, make sure that the opaque
value on that OpenExistentialExpr is cleared.
We do not visit these during normal AST walks because they normally
appear in the subexpression held by the OpenExistentialExpr. In this
case, however, we replace that subexpression with an ErrorExpr which
means we will not visit the opaque value at all, so certain operations,
like setting the type on the opaque value, will never happen, and we can
run into problems later by code that assumes the type is set.
It seems reasonable to just clear these out in cases like this since
they are not reachable by any normal means.
Situations where there is a contextual RawRepresentable type is
used incorrectly would produce `<Type>(rawValue: )` fix-it only
in cases where neither or both sides of the expression are optional.
Let's fix that by adding a fix-it for optional to contextual raw
value type conversion.
Resolves: rdar://problem/32431736
Now that preCheckExpression() can handle more cases, we can
eliminate a special case where sometimes we would make
DeclRefExprs instead of TypeExprs for references to generic
types.
Replace `NameOfType foo = dyn_cast<NameOfType>(bar)` with DRY version `auto foo = dyn_cast<NameOfType>(bar)`.
The DRY auto version is by far the dominant form already used in the repo, so this PR merely brings the exceptional cases (redundant repetition form) in line with the dominant form (auto form).
See the [C++ Core Guidelines](https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#es11-use-auto-to-avoid-redundant-repetition-of-type-names) for a general discussion on why to use `auto` to avoid redundant repetition of type names.
This introduces a few unfortunate things because the syntax is awkward.
In particular, the period and following token in \.[a], \.? and \.! are
token sequences that don't appear anywhere else in Swift, and so need
special handling. This is somewhat compounded by \foo.bar.baz possibly
being \(foo).bar.baz or \(foo.bar).baz (parens around the type), and,
furthermore, needing to distinguish \Foo?.bar from \Foo.?bar.
rdar://problem/31724243
