Find all the usages of `--enable-experimental-feature` or
`--enable-upcoming-feature` in the tests and replace some of the
`REQUIRES: asserts` to use `REQUIRES: swift-feature-Foo` instead, which
should correctly apply to depending on the asserts/noasserts mode of the
toolchain for each feature.
Remove some comments that talked about enabling asserts since they don't
apply anymore (but I might had miss some).
All this was done with an automated script, so some formatting weirdness
might happen, but I hope I fixed most of those.
There might be some tests that were `REQUIRES: asserts` that might run
in `noasserts` toolchains now. This will normally be because their
feature went from experimental to upcoming/base and the tests were not
updated.
If the extension adds conformance to an invertible protocol, it's
confusing for people to also infer conditional requirements on the
generic parameters for those invertible protocols. This came up in the
review of SE-427.
Removing the old, ad-hoc diagnostics code improves the diagnostics we
emit, since the existing diagnostics for missing conformances is already
pretty good.
rdar://127369509
The model for associated types hasn't been fully worked-out for
noncopyable generics, but there is some support already that is being
used by the stdlib for an internal-only (and rather cursed) protocol
`_Pointer` to support `UnsafePointer`, etc.
This patch gates the existing experimental support for associated types
behind a feature flag. This flag doesn't emit feature-guards in
interfaces, since support for it is tied closely to NoncopyableGenerics
and has been there from its early days.
These tests were not updated in the transition to
`REQUIRES: noncopyable_generics` and thus running them with a
correctly-built stdlib that has the Copyable requirements.
We want extensions to introduce default Copyable/Escapable just like
other generic contexts, so that once Optional adopts ~Copyable,
an `extension Optional` actually adds `Wrapped: Copyable` by default.
A swiftmodule can only be correctly ingested by a compiler
that has a matching state of using or not-using
NoncopyableGenerics.
The reason for this is fundamental: the absence of a Copyable
conformance in the swiftmodule indicates that a type is
noncopyable. Thus, if a compiler with NoncopyableGenerics
reads a swiftmodule that was not compiled with that feature,
it will think every type in that module is noncopyable.
Similarly, if a compiler with NoncopyableGenerics produces a
swiftmodule, there will be Copyable requirements on each
generic parameter that the compiler without the feature will
become confused about.
The solution here is to trigger a module mismatch, so that
the compiler re-generates the swiftmodule file using the
swiftinterface, which has been kept compatible with the compiler
regardless of whether the feature is enabled.
