Change all uses of "do { ... } while <cond>" to use "repeat" instead.
Rename DoWhileStmt to RepeatWhileStmt. Add diagnostic suggesting change
of 'do' to 'repeat' if a condition is found afterwards.
<rdar://problem/20336424> rename do/while loops to repeat/while & introduce "repeat <count> {}" loops
Swift SVN r27650
Previously some parts of the compiler referred to them as "fields",
and most referred to them as "elements". Use the more generic 'elements'
nomenclature because that's what we refer to other things in the compiler
(e.g. the elements of a bracestmt).
At the same time, make the API better by providing "getElement" consistently
and using it, instead of getElements()[i].
NFC.
Swift SVN r26894
For structs/enums, this was already the case. For classes, we simply
need to ensure that we always look at the extensions of protocols to
which the class conforms.
Swift SVN r26773
This patch introduces a new kind of pattern for matching bool literals, i.e. true and false. Essentially, it is very similar to a pattern for matching enum elements, but simpler. Most of the code is just a boiler plate code copy/pasted from the code for enum element patterns. The only different thing is the emitBoolDispatch function, which emits a SIL code for matching bools.
With this patch, we don't get any false non-exhaustive switch diagnostics for switches on bools anymore. And we have a lot of radars complaining about it. For example rdar://16514545 and rdar://20130240.
Note, that this patch fixes the non-exhaustive switch diagnostics without changing the internal representation of bools. Implementing bool as an enum would have the same effect when it comes to these diagnostics and we would get this diagnostics fix for free, i.e. without any code committed here. But implementing bools-as-enums is an ongoing work and I'm investigating its performance implications. If we become confident that bool-as-enum does not have a negative impact on performance and decide to merge it, then we can revert this patch as it would not be necessary anymore. But if we decide to skip the enum-as-bool approach to its performance issues, then we would have at least fixed the false non-exhaustive diagnostics for bools by means of this patch.
Swift SVN r26650
Remove the semantic restrictions that prohibited extensions of
protocol types, and start making some systematic changes so that
protocol extensions start to make sense:
- Replace a lot of occurrences of isa<ProtocolDecl> and
dyn_cast<ProtocolDecl> on DeclContexts to use the new
DeclContext::isProtocolOrProtocolExtensionContext(), where we want
that behavior to apply equally to protocols and protocol extensions.
- Eliminate ProtocolDecl::getSelf() in favor of
DeclContext::getProtocolSelf(), which produces the appropriate
generic type parameter for the 'Self' of a protocol or protocol
extension. Update all of the callers of ProtocolDecl::getSelf()
appropriately.
- Update extension validation to appropriately form generic
parameter lists for protocol extensions.
- Methods in protocol extensions always use the witnesscc calling
convention.
At this point, we can type check and SILGen very basic definitions of
protocol extensions (without associated types, IRGen crashes, etc.)
with methods that can call protocol requirements, generic free
functions, and other methods within the same protocol extension.
This is identical to r26579; the prior commit addressed the underlying
conformance substitution problem that caused rdar://problem/20320393
and subsequent reversion of r26579.
Swift SVN r26639
We can now use internal declarations safely and correctly in source files!
The remaining work is to make sure testable imports work reliably through
modules, which is important for debugging unit tests.
It's also possible this work will affect compile time, but for the most
part we don't have large quantities of internal declarations that are
being ignored, and some day we will strip them out of non-testable modules
altogether.
Part of rdar://problem/17732115
Swift SVN r26633
We do a silly little dance here of finding all of the members of
protocols and their extensions, then deleting the protocol members. In
the future, this is the place where we should handle the protocol
requirement -> witness mapping, including handling derived
conformances.
Basic protocol extensions seem to be working now:
extension SequenceType {
var myCount: Int {
var result = 0
for x in self {
++result
}
return result
}
}
println(["a", "b", "c", "d"].myCount) // 4, duh
Swift SVN r26617
Remove the semantic restrictions that prohibited extensions of
protocol types, and start making some systematic changes so that
protocol extensions start to make sense:
- Replace a lot of occurrences of isa<ProtocolDecl> and
dyn_cast<ProtocolDecl> on DeclContexts to use the new
DeclContext::isProtocolOrProtocolExtensionContext(), where we want
that behavior to apply equally to protocols and protocol extensions.
- Eliminate ProtocolDecl::getSelf() in favor of
DeclContext::getProtocolSelf(), which produces the appropriate
generic type parameter for the 'Self' of a protocol or protocol
extension. Update all of the callers of ProtocolDecl::getSelf()
appropriately.
- Update extension validation to appropriately form generic
parameter lists for protocol extensions.
- Methods in protocol extensions always use the witnesscc calling
convention.
At this point, we can type check and SILGen very basic definitions of
protocol extensions with methods that can call protocol requirements,
generic free functions, and other methods within the same protocol
extension.
Regresses four compiler crashers but improves three compiler
crashers... we'll call that "progress"; the four regressions all hit
the same assertion in the constraint system that will likely be
addressed as protocol extensions starts working.
Swift SVN r26579
Currently a no-op, but effective access for entities within the current
module will soon need to take testability into account. This declaration:
internal func foo() {}
has a formal access of 'internal', but an effective access of 'public' if
we're in a testable mode.
Part of rdar://problem/17732115 (testability)
Swift SVN r26472
This patch also introduces some SILGen infrastructure for
dividing the function into "ordinary" and "postmatter"
sections, with error-handling-like stuff going into the
final section. Currently, this is largely undermined by
SILBuilder, but I'm going to fix that in a follow-up.
Swift SVN r26422
For now, we assume that 'while' after the braces starts
a do/while rather than being an independent statement.
We should disambiguate this, or better, remove do/while.
Tests later.
Swift SVN r26079
"private" is a very overloaded term already. "Cascading" instead of
"non-private" is a bit more clear about what will happen with this sort
of lookup.
No functionality change. There are some double negatives I plan to clean
up in the next commit, but this one was supposed to be very mechanical.
Swift SVN r23969
... now that we have an exquisitely shaved yak.
This provides a simple and uniform model for "let" constants: they are always either
immediately initialized in their declaration, or they are initialized dynamically
exactly once before any use.
This is a simple generalization of our current model for initializers, but enables
the use of let constants in more cases in local context, e.g. patterns like this:
let x : SomeThing
if condition {
x = foo()
} else {
x = bar()
}
use(x)
Previously this would have to be declared a "var" for no good reason: the value is
only ever initialized, never actually mutated.
The implementation of this is reasonably straight-forward now that the infrastructure
is in place: Sema treats 'let' constants as "settable" if they lack an initializer
(either in the declaration or in a non-PBD binding). This exposes them as an lvalue
at the AST level. SILGen then lowers these things to an alloc_stack, and DI enforces
the "initialization only" requirement that it already enforces for uninitialized 'let'
properties in structs/classes.
Swift SVN r23916
...and thus does not affect downstream files...
...and adopt it in several places:
- when looking up the default type for a literal (test included)
- when looking up the first component in an IdentTypeRepr (test included)
- when deciding which ~= to use in a switch (test forthcoming)
- when a protocol has an operator function requirement (test forthcoming)
- when validating @NSApplicationMain and @UIApplicationMain
- when an enum element shows up unqualified in a switch
- several places where it doesn't matter because we're looking something up
in the standard library.
Part of rdar://problem/15353101
Swift SVN r23670
This adds a check to isPrivateContextForLookup, and also changes Sema to
use a function itself as the lookup context for non-generic functions'
result types (like generic functions already do). It also moves
isPrivateContextForLookup onto DeclContext itself, to be used in the next
commits.
Swift SVN r23633
Specifically, a qualified lookup can now be treated as:
- a known private dependency, which does not affect downstream files
- a known non-private dependency, which may affect downstream files
- a known non-dependency
- unknown, which means the compiler will try to infer whether it's a
private dependency from the context
This commit also includes some obvious uses of the new flags, but nothing
actually too interesting yet; there shouldn't be any observable behavior
change here in normal user code.
Swift SVN r23483
Previously we would fail to find something in a private context, jump up
to a public context, and decide that the dependency was now non-private.
Swift SVN r23482
This API didn't take accessibility into account in a useful way, and
usually did a more general search than what was actually needed. We've
gradually been replacing uses of it with either more safe or more direct
APIs, including a regular UnqualifiedLookup, DeclContext::lookupQualified,
or Module::lookupValue. Now it's gone.
No functionality change.
Swift SVN r23449
This is sort of two commits squashed into one: first, update
ReferencedNameTracker to record whether a name or type is non-private,
along with changing all clients to assume non-private; and second,
actually try to (conservatively) decide if a particular unqualified lookup can
be considered private.
What does "private" mean? That means that a dependency does not affect
"downstream" files. For example, if file A depends on B, and B depends on C,
then a change in C normally means A will get rebuilt. But if B's dependencies
on C are all private dependencies (e.g. lookups from within function bodies),
then A does not need to be rebuilt.
In practice there are several rules about when we can make this assumption,
and a few places where our current DeclContext model is not good enough to
distinguish private uses from non-private uses. In these cases we have to
be conservative and assume that the use is non-private (and thus that
downstream files will need to be rebuilt).
Part of rdar://problem/15353101
Swift SVN r23447
Include a mapping from Objective-C selectors to the @objc methods that
produce Objective-c methods with those selectors. Use this to lazily
populate the Objective-C method lookup tables in each class. This makes
@objc override checking work across Swift modules, which is part of
rdar://problem/18391046.
Note that we use a single, unified selector table, both because it is
simpler and because it makes global queries ("is there any method with
the given selector?") easier.
Swift SVN r23214
Diagnose cases where the use of @objc will produce Objective-C methods
that end up overriding an Objective-C method in a superclass, when
that override is not properly represented as an override in the Swift
type system. This can happen when the Objective-C methods are produced
by different kinds of entities. For example:
class Super {
@objc var property: Int
}
class Sub : Super {
@objc func setProperty(property: Int) { }
}
In Swift, Sub.setProperty and Super.property are completely
unrelated. However, both produce an Objective-C instance method with
the selector "setProperty:", so we end up with unexpected overriding
behavior. Diagnose this whenever it occurs, regardless of the kind of
@objc entity that produced the Objective-C methods: initializers,
deinitializers, methods, properties, or subscripts.
Implements the rest of the intended functionality of
rdar://problem/18391046, with the caveat that there are two remaining
classes of bugs:
1) Superclasses defined in a module (or imported from a Clang
module) aren't handled properly yet; we might not see those methods.
2) We won't properly detect all of these failures when the methods
are scattered across different source files in the same module.
Swift SVN r23170
@objc methods, initializers, deinitializers, properties, and
subscripts all produce Objective-C methods. Diagnose cases where two
such entities (which may be of different kinds) produce the same
Objective-C method in the same class.
As a special exception, one can have an Objective-C method in an
extension that conflicts with an Objective-C method in the original
class definition, so long as the original class definition is from a
different model. This reflects the reality in Objective-C that the
category definition wins over the original definition, and is used in
at least one overlay (SpriteKit).
This is the first part of rdar://problem/18391046; the second part
involves checking that overrides are sane.
Swift SVN r23147
We need to do this mainly to figure out when extensions can affect this file.
This is part of the intra-module dependency tracking work to implement
incremental rebuilds.
Part of rdar://problem/15353101
Swift SVN r22927
This tracks top-level qualified and unqualified lookups in the primary
source file, meaning we see all top-level names used in the file. This
is part of the intra-module dependency tracking work that can enable
incremental rebuilds.
This doesn't quite cover all of a file's dependencies. In particular, it
misses cases involving extensions defined in terms of typealiases, and
it doesn't yet track operator lookups. The whole scheme is also very
dependent on being used to track file-level dependencies; if C is a subclass
of B and B is a subclass of A, C doesn't appear to depend on A. It only
works because changing A will mark B as dirty.
Part of rdar://problem/15353101
Swift SVN r22925
This is so that AccessFilteringDeclConsumer can filter without validating decls, thus avoiding unnecessary typechecking for
private declarations across the module during code-completion.
Test case on the SourceKit side.
Swift SVN r22052
Now that there's just one entry point for discriminated lookup, there's not
really a need for this extra abstraction.
One thing still up in the air is unqualified lookup support for discriminator
preferences (for, say, breakpoint conditions), but we'll cross that bridge
when we come to it.
Part of rdar://problem/17632175
Swift SVN r21755
Currently this only handles top-level nominal types. We're just trying to
emulate what the debugger does when it needs to go from a mangled name to
an AST node, so it's okay that the cases handled here are very restricted.
We just want to make sure that the debugger is /able/ to do what it needs
to do.
This does not yet handle nested (non-top-level) values; that will require
changes to DeclContext::lookupQualified.
Part of rdar://problem/17632175
Swift SVN r21690
This is in preparation for allowing demangling to match up with a particular
AST node, even if there are two private decls with the same name in the same
module. This commit doesn't actually change anything about the lookup; the
next commits will start adding support for the various lookups-with-
discriminators. (This is mostly only useful for the debugger.)
Part of rdar://problem/17632175
Swift SVN r21689
Previously, importing "ctypes.bits" would expose "bits" as a module name,
but that module would be empty and useless. We may want to revisit this
when we design submodules for Swift.
Swift SVN r20901
