If generic parameter associated with missing conformance comes
from different context diagnose the problem as "referencing" a
specific declaration from affected type.
Instead of simply pointing out which type had conformance failures,
let's use affected declaration instead, which makes diagnostics much
richer e.g.
```
'List<[S], S.Id>' requires that 'S.Id' conform to 'Hashable'
```
versus
```
initializer 'init(_🆔)' requires that 'E' conform to 'Hashable' [with 'E' = 'S.Id']
```
Since latter message uses information about declaration, it can also
point to it in the source. That makes is much easier to understand when
problem is related to overloaded (function) declarations.
Use the declaration-based name lookup facilities to re-implement
ProtocolDecl::getInheritedProtocols(), rather than dynamically selecting
between the requirement signature and the inherited types. This reduces
dependencies for this computation down to basic name lookup (no semantic
analysis) and gives us a stable result.
Add API to get all of the nominal types directly referenced from the
inheritance clause of a given declaration. Use that to find the protocols
to enter into the conformance lookup table based on a given declaration,
without going through the type checker [*].
[*] Except for unqualified lookup still needing to use the type checker.
Use ExtensionDecl::getExtendedNominal() to wire up extensions to their
nominal types early in type checking (the bindExtensions()) operation,
rather than going through type validation to do so.
ClassDecl::getSuperclass() produces a complete interface type describing the
superclass of a class, including any generic arguments (for a generic type).
Most callers only need the referenced ClassDecl, which is (now) cheaper
to compute: switch those callers over to ClassDecl::getSuperclassDecl().
Fixes an existing test for SR-5993.
...and collapse StaticVar/ClassVar and StaticLet/ClassLet into
StaticProperty/ClassProperty.
"var" and "let" aren't great nouns to use in diagnostics to begin with,
especially alongside semantic terms like "instance method". Focus on
the type vs. non-type aspect instead with "property", which better
matches how people talk about member vars (and lets) anyway.
Whenever we visit a declaration via the DeclChecker, add it to the
list of declarations to finalize. This makes sure that we can centralize
the notion of “finalize for SILGen” and that it will be called for
everything in the source file being processed.
This builds on initial commit which added `RelabelArguments` fix
to the solver that only supported `missingLabels` at that moment,
but now it supports all three posibilities - missing/extraneous and
incorrect labels.
Note that you can still run into problems because of over-eager
declaration validation triggered by resolving nested types.
However, that's a separate problem.
Fixes <https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-631> and
<rdar://problem/20535574>.
For now, the accessors have been underscored as `_read` and `_modify`.
I'll prepare an evolution proposal for this feature which should allow
us to remove the underscores or, y'know, rename them to `purple` and
`lettuce`.
`_read` accessors do not make any effort yet to avoid copying the
value being yielded. I'll work on it in follow-up patches.
Opaque accesses to properties and subscripts defined with `_modify`
accessors will use an inefficient `materializeForSet` pattern that
materializes the value to a temporary instead of accessing it in-place.
That will be fixed by migrating to `modify` over `materializeForSet`,
which is next up after the `read` optimizations.
SIL ownership verification doesn't pass yet for the test cases here
because of a general fault in SILGen where borrows can outlive their
borrowed value due to being cleaned up on the general cleanup stack
when the borrowed value is cleaned up on the formal-access stack.
Michael, Andy, and I discussed various ways to fix this, but it seems
clear to me that it's not in any way specific to coroutine accesses.
rdar://35399664
As part of this, lift the now-unnecessary restriction against
combining a non-mutable addressor with a setter. I've also
tweaked some of the diagnostics.
This is in preparation for generalized accessors.
Remove one SILGen test (!) because it is testing for something that
no longer happens: because Objective-C initializers now get properly
imported as being ‘dynamic’, we don’t have vtable entries for them
(or their overrides), so this test is no longer interesting. The
non-Objective-C version of this test still persists and is unchanged.
Separate out the semantic state for the ‘dynamic’ check (from the
presence of the attribute), and move all of the computation of the
‘dynamic’ bit into the request-evaluator.
In the process, this fixes a bug where implicitly-synthesized initializers
in subclasses of imported classes would not be implicitly made ‘final’.
When we determine that an optional value needs to be unwrapped to make
an expression type check, use notes to provide several different
Fix-It options (with descriptions) rather than always pushing users
toward '!'. Specifically, the errors + Fix-Its now looks like this:
error: value of optional type 'X?' must be unwrapped to a value of
type 'X'
f(x)
^
note: coalesce using '??' to provide a default when the optional
value contains 'nil'
f(x)
^
?? <#default value#>
note: force-unwrap using '!' to abort execution if the optional
value contains 'nil'
f(x)
^
!
Fixes rdar://problem/42081852.
We still had unavailable versions of these for floating-point types
only. We shouldn't need to keep these around, and can instead just
emit a helpful diagnostic for anyone that attempts to use them.
Unfortunately I don't see any way for the diagnostic to produce an
actual fix-it, so it just suggests '+= 1' or '-= 1' without actually
producing a fix.
These will never work properly because of phase ordering issues with
the current declaration checker design. Since we can always express
the same thing with the protocol inheritance clause instead, just
diagnose this as an error instead of trying to hack around it.
Fixes <rdar://problem/38077232>, <https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-5581>.
