Push the getName method from ValueDecl down to only those types that are
guaranteed to have a name that is backed by an identifier and that will
not be special.
The -enable-testing flag makes ValueDecl::getEffectiveAccess()
say that internal declarations are public.
This would lead us to emit spurious diagnostics if a default
argument of an internal function referenced a private symbol,
for example, which is something we actually want to allow.
This is a second revision of the patch -- instead of changing
getEffectiveAccess() to take an extra parameter, this changes
getFormalAccessScope() instead.
Fixes <rdar://problem/32592973>.
The -enable-testing flag makes ValueDecl::getEffectiveAccess()
say that internal declarations are public.
This would lead us to emit spurious diagnostics if a default
argument of an internal function referenced a private symbol,
for example, which is something we actually want to allow.
Hack around this by adding a new 'forLinkage' parameter to
getEffectiveAccess(). When this is false, we ignore the
-enable-testing flag, and only look for the @_versioned
attribute.
I'm not very happy with the fix, because it only compliates
the subtle behaviors of getFormalAccess(), getEffectiveAccess()
and getFormalAccessScope() further. But refactoring this is
a bigger change than I'm willing to put into swift-4.0-branch.
Fixes <rdar://problem/32592973>.
This changes `getBaseName()` on `DeclName` to return a `DeclBaseName`
instead of an `Identifier`. All places that will continue to be
expecting an `Identifier` are changed to call `getBaseIdentifier` which
will later assert that the `DeclName` is actually backed by an
identifier and not a special name.
For transitional purposes, a conversion operator from `DeclBaseName` to
`Identifier` has been added that will be removed again once migration
to DeclBaseName has been completed in other parts of the compiler.
Unify approach to printing declaration names
Printing a declaration's name using `<<` and `getBaseName()` is be
independent of the return type of `getBaseName()` which will change in
the future from `Identifier` to `DeclBaseName`
Protocol requirements involving same-type-to-Self constraints cannot
be witnessed by declarations in non-final classes that have the same
form of same-type requirement to the corresponding class type, because
it creates a soundness hole with subclasses:
protocol Q {
func foo<T: P>(_: T, _: T.T) where T.T == Self
}
class C: Q {
func foo<T: P>(_: T, _: C) where T.T == C {}
}
class D: C {
// in D, T.T == D does not hold
}
Warn about this in Swift 3 compatibility mode, error on it in Swift 4
mode. When possible, provide a note + Fix-It suggesting that the
same-type constraint might be weakened to a superclass constraint
(which works with subclassing).
Fixes rdar://problem/30398503.
The AST verifier was causing deserialization of generic environments,
which slows things down considerably and affects our ability to test
for laziness in deserialization. Prevent it from doing so---and only
do the extra checkig if something else deserialized the generic
environment already.
... except there are some cases where it happens through means that
are harder to control (e.g., the AST walker for patterns) that need
more thought.
Resolves: https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4426
* Make IfConfigDecl be able to hold ASTNodes
* Parse #if as IfConfigDecl
* Stop enclosing toplevel #if into TopLevelCodeDecl.
* Eliminate IfConfigStmt
The "common return type" optimization that occurs at
constraint-generation time was overly complicated and wrong in a
couple of places. Fix up these issues:
* Don't cache information about this optimization in the decls
themselves; it ignores visibility as well as invalidation that
occurs in script mode and playgrounds. Just do the the work again
* Don't map type into context; we can bail out when there are type
parameters present
* Skip the "self" parameters of operators in types (since this only
ever occurs for operators).
Longer term, this optimization should move into the solver itself. But
for now, at least it's cleaner/more correct.
An early optimization in constraint generation attempted to simplify
type construction (e.g., X(...)) when the type in question has no
failable initializers. However, the optimization didn't appropriately
clear out the cached bit when new information became available (e.g.,
new conformances, new extensions), and didn't seem to help anything
performance-wise (type-checking times didn't increase at all when I
turned this off).
Fixes rdar://problem/30588177.
This isn't an inherent limitation of the language---in fact, it would
be a problem for library evolution if you had to know a superclass's
full vtable contents to generate the vtable for a subclass. However,
that's exactly where we are today, and that's not going to change for
Swift 4.
One small hole in the Swift 3 / Swift 4 story.
More rdar://problem/31878396
As such, we no longer insert two placeholders for initializers that
need two vtable slots; instead we record that in the
MissingMemberDecl. I can see MissingMemberDecl growing to be something
we'd actually show to users, that can be used for other kinds of
declarations that don't have vtable entries, but for now I'm not going
to worry about any of that.
This lets us serialize that decision, which means we can conceivably
/change/ the decision in later versions of the compiler without
breaking existing code. More immediately, it's groundwork that will
eventually allow us to drop decls from the AST without affecting
vtable layout.
This isn't actually a great answer; what we really want is for SIL
vtables to be serialized consistently and treated as the point of
truth. But that would be more change than we're comfortable taking in
the Swift 4 timeframe.
First part of rdar://problem/31878396.
* Allow CodingKey conformance to be automatically derived for enums
which have no raw type (with no associated values) and which have
a raw type of String or Int.
* Allow Encodable and Decodable conformance to be automatically derived
for classes and structs with Encodable/Decodable properties
* Add initial unit tests for verifying derived conformance
(which can happen if an imported class has un-importable initializers)
Our initializer model guarantees that it's safe to inherit convenience
initializers when a subclass has implemented all designated
initializers, since each convenience initializer will be implemented
by calling one of the designated initializers. If one of the
designated initializers /can't/ be implemented in Swift, however,
then inheriting the convenience initializer would not be safe.
This is potentially a source-breaking change, so the importer will
only actually record that it failed to import something in when
compiling in Swift 4 mode.
rdar://problem/31563662
* Use the presence of an argument type to check for associated values
hasOnlyCasesWithoutAssociatedValues returns true for any serialized
enum declaration whether or not it has cases. This never really came
up because it's mostly relevant to Sema's proto-deriving mechanism. Fix
this by using the presence of the case's argument type instead.
* Separate checks for presence of cases and enum simplicity
Necessary because the old behavior was an artifact of the
implementation.
This commit does a few things:
1. It uses SwitchEnumBuilder so we are not re-inventing any wheels.
2. Instead of hacking around not putting in a destroy for .None on the fail
pass, just *do the right thing* and recognize that we have a binary case enum
and in such a case, just emit code for the other case rather than use a default
case (meaning no cleanup on .none).
rdar://31145255
In the general case, this is done by reverse engineering the "best"
places for requirements to go from the requirement signature.
Conformance/superclass requirements like Self: Foo and Self.T: Bar defer
to the inheritance clause if they appear there, or are attached to the
protocol where clause or T (respectively) if not. A conformance
requirement like Self.T.U: Baz will go on T (if T is declared in the
protocol being printed).
Same-type requirements always go in where clauses, and specifically a
where clause of an associated type that is mentioned in them, so
something simple like Self.T.U == Int goes on the T associated type
definition, and similarly Self.T.U == Self.V will go on V (it's kinda
nonsense, but also more directly connected to V). There's a left-bias
for cases without an "obvious" choice, meaning something more
complicated like Self.T.U == Foo<Self.V> will end up on T.
Requirements that don't fit elsewhere will go on the
protocol (e.g. Self.AssocTypeFromSuperProtocol == Int).
Use this in ProtocolDecl::requiresClassSlow(), and hope its presence
discourages more potentially-infinitely-recursive walks of the
inherited-protocols lists.
Previously some decls (TypeAliasDecl and ExtensionDecl) had bits
explicitly marking whether they've been validated, while other decls
just deduced this from hasInterfaceType. The doing the latter doesn't
work when the interface type can be computed before doing full
validation (such as protocols and associatedtypes, which have trivial
interface types), and so an explicit bit is adopted for all decls.
The list of directly inherited protocols of a ProtocolDecl is already
encoded in the requirement signature, as conformance constraints where
the subject is Self. Gather the list from there rather than separately
computing/storing the list of "inherited protocols".
The root cause is that NormalProtocolConformance::forEachValueWitness()
needs to skip protocol members that are not requirements.
Otherwise we end up passing such a non-requirement member down to
NormalProtocolConformance::getWitness() and hit an assert when we
cannot find it.
It looks like this code path was only ever hit from SourceKit.
The fix moves TypeChecker::isRequirement() to a method on ValueDecl,
and calls it in the right places.
Fixes <https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3815>.
This is in preparation for generic subscripts, which will also
expose methods like getGenericSignature(), and so on.
ExtensionDecl, GenericTypeDecl and AbstractFunctionDecl all share
code. Instead of copy and pasting it yet again into SubscriptDecl,
factor it out into a common base class.
There are more yaks to shave here, but this is a step in the right
direction.
