Run whole-module checks at the end of perform Sema, specifically
TryAddFinal. After everything has been type checked, accessibility has
been provided, and we have had a chance to see any potential
overrides, we try to add the final attribute to class members.
This ends up de-virtualizing many functions, or rather they avoid the
vtable altogether. Thus, there are many test file changes. New test
file add_final.swift. Other tests updated to either reflect the
non-virtual call, or to have public added to them.
Swift SVN r20338
dynamicCastClass assumes that the destination type is a
Swift class type.
dynamicCastObjCClass assumes that the destination type is
an ObjC class type (represented as ObjC metadata, not type
metadata).
dynamicCastUnknownClass assumes only that the destination
type is some kind of class.
Swift SVN r18776
There's a bit of a reshuffle of the ExplicitCastExpr subclasses:
- The existing ConditionalCheckedCastExpr expression node now represents
"as?".
- A new ForcedCheckedCastExpr node represents "as" when it is a
downcast.
- CoerceExpr represents "as" when it is a coercion.
- A new UnresolvedCheckedCastExpr node describes "as" before it has
been type-checked down to ForcedCheckedCastExpr or CoerceExpr. This
wasn't a strictly necessary change, but it helps us detangle what's
going on.
There are a few new diagnostics to help users avoid getting bitten by
as/as? mistakes:
- Custom errors when a forced downcast (as) is used as the operand
of postfix '!' or '?', with Fix-Its to remove the '!' or make the
downcast conditional (with as?), respectively.
- A warning when a forced downcast is injected into an optional,
with a suggestion to use a conditional downcast.
- A new error when the postfix '!' is used for a contextual
downcast, with a Fix-It to replace it with "as T" with the
contextual type T.
Lots of test updates, none of which felt like regressions. The new
tests are in test/expr/cast/optionals.swift.
Addresses <rdar://problem/17000058>
Swift SVN r18556
The somewhat harder one is when the superclass is generic in
some way.
The much harder one (given the current representation) is when
the superclass is generic and *expressed in terms of the current
class's own generic arguments*.
Swift SVN r3477
