(Note that this registry isn't fully enabled yet; it's built so that
we can test it, but has not yet taken over the primary task of
managing conformances from the existing system).
The conformance registry tracks all of the protocols to which a
particular nominal type conforms, including those for which
conformance was explicitly specified, implied by other explicit
conformances, inherited from a superclass, or synthesized by the
implementation.
The conformance registry is a lazily-built data structure designed for
multi-file support (which has been a problematic area for protocol
conformances). It allows one to query for the conformances of a type
to a particular protocol, enumerate all protocols to which a type
conforms, and enumerate all of the conformances that are associated
with a particular declaration context (important to eliminate
duplicated witness tables).
The conformance registry diagnoses conflicts and ambiguities among
different conformances of the same type to the same protocol. There
are three common cases where we'll see a diagnostic:
1) Redundant explicit conformance of a type to a protocol:
protocol P { }
struct X : P { }
extension X : P { } // error: redundant explicit conformance
2) Explicit conformance to a protocol that collides with an inherited
conformance:
protocol P { }
class Super : P { }
class Sub : Super, P { } // error: redundant explicit conformance
3) Ambiguous placement of an implied conformance:
protocol P1 { }
protocol P2 : P1 { }
protocol P3 : P1 { }
struct Y { }
extension Y : P2 { }
extension Y : P3 { } // error: ambiguous implied conformance to 'P1'
This happens when two different explicit conformances (here, P2 and
P3) placed on different declarations (e.g., two extensions, or the
original definition and other extension) both imply the same
conformance (P1), and neither of the explicit conformances imply
each other. We require the user to explicitly specify the ambiguous
conformance to break the ambiguity and associate the witness table
with a specific context.
Swift SVN r26067
For @objc enums, raw values determine the representation values, so we have
to compute them eagerly in order for switch statements to work. Similarly,
if the enum is broken, we have to /fail/ eagerly so that we don't fall down
later on in IRGen.
rdar://problem/19775284
Swift SVN r25282
- Situations where the type of a return statement's result expression doesn't line up with the function's type annotation.
- Situations where the type of an initializer expression doesn't line up with its declaration's type pattern.
- Situations where we assume a conversion to a built-in protocol must take place, such as in if-statement conditionals.
(Addresses rdar://problem/19224776, rdar://problem/19422107, rdar://problem/19422156, rdar://problem/19547806 and lots of other dupes.)
Swift SVN r24853
Allows same-type constraints that map down to tuple types. This is a
minimal fix that allows the code in rdar://problem/18120419 to
type-check. However, the actual code in that radar triggers a SILGen
assertion (Archetype to be substituted must be valid in function), and
we're not recursively matching concrete types the way we should be, so
this is a baby step.
Among other things, this allows one to provide a same-type con
Swift SVN r24535
Most tests were using %swift or similar substitutions, which did not
include the target triple and SDK. The driver was defaulting to the
host OS. Thus, we could not run the tests when the standard library was
not built for OS X.
Swift SVN r24504
When dealing with multiple levels of generic parameters, the mapping
from potential archetypes down to actual archetypes did not have
access to the archetypes for outer generic parameters. When same-type
requirements equated a type from the inner generic parameter list with
one from the outer generic parameter list, the reference to the outer
generic parameter list's type would remain dependent. For example,
given:
struct S<A: P> {
init<Q: P where Q.T == A>(_ q: Q) {}
}
we would end up with the dependent type for A (τ_0_0) in the same-type
constraint in the initializer requirement.
Now, notify the ArchetypeBuilder of outer generic signatures (and,
therefore, outer generic parameters), so that it has knowledge of the
mapping from those generic parameters to the corresponding
archetypes. Use that mapping when translating potential archetypes to
real archetypes. Additionally, when a potential archetype is mapped to
a concrete type (via a same-type constraint to a concrete type),
substitute archetypes for any dependent types within the concrete
type.
Remove a bunch of hacks in the compiler that identified dependent
types in "strange" places and tried to map them back to
archetypes. Those hacks handled some narrow cases we saw in the
standard library and some external code, but papered over the
underlying issue and left major gaps.
Sadly, introduce one hack into the type checker to help with the
matching of generic witnesses to generic requirements that follow the
pattern described above. See ConstraintSystem::SelfTypeVar; the proper
implementation for this matching involves substituting the adoptee
type in for Self within the requirement, and synthesizing new
archetypes from the result.
Fixes rdar://18435371, rdar://18803556, rdar://19082500,
rdar://19245317, rdar://19371678 and a half dozen compiler crashers
from the crash suite. There are a few other radars that I suspect this
fixes, but which require more steps to reproduce.
Swift SVN r24460
This reverts commit r23030.
This puts non-primary archetypes back in the all-archetypes list,
which is the deepest underlying problem behind
rdar://problem/19049566.
Conflicts:
lib/AST/ArchetypeBuilder.cpp
validation-test/compiler_crashers/0033-error.swift
validation-test/compiler_crashers/035-multiple-typecheck-segfault.swift
Swift SVN r24333
rdar://problem/17198298
- Allow 'static' in protocol property and func requirements, but not 'class'.
- Allow 'static' methods in classes - they are 'class final'.
- Only allow 'class' methods in classes (or extensions of classes)
- Remove now unneeded diagnostics related to finding 'static' in previously banned places.
- Update relevant diagnostics to make the new rules clear.
Swift SVN r24260
Previously the "as" keyword could either represent coercion or or forced
downcasting. This change separates the two notions. "as" now only means
type conversion, while the new "as!" operator is used to perform forced
downcasting. If a program uses "as" where "as!" is called for, we emit a
diagnostic and fixit.
Internally, this change removes the UnresolvedCheckedCastExpr class, in
favor of directly instantiating CoerceExpr when parsing the "as"
operator, and ForcedCheckedCastExpr when parsing the "as!" operator.
Swift SVN r24253
as passing self by value, not by inout. This is the correct representation at
the AST level, and we now lower self references as the new @in_guaranteed
parameter convention. This allows SIL clients (like DI) to know that a nonmutating
protocol method does not mutate the pointee passed into the method.
This fixes:
<rdar://problem/19215313> let properties don't work with protocol method dispatch
<rdar://problem/15821762> Self argument of generic curried nonmutating instance methods is inout
Swift SVN r23864
These changes make the following improvements to how we generate diagnostics for expression typecheck failure:
- Customizing a diagnostic for a specific expression kind is as easy as adding a new method to the FailureDiagnosis class,
and does not require intimate knowledge of the constraint solver’s inner workings.
- As part of this patch, I’ve introduced specialized diagnostics for call, binop, unop, subscript, assignment and inout
expressions, but we can go pretty far with this.
- This also opens up the possibility to customize diagnostics not just for the expression kind, but for the specific types
involved as well.
- For the purpose of presenting accurate type info, partially-specialized subexpressions are individually re-typechecked
free of any contextual types. This allows us to:
- Properly surface subexpression errors.
- Almost completely avoid any type variables in our diagnostics. In cases where they could not be eliminated, we now
substitute in "_".
- More accurately indicate the sources of errors.
- We do a much better job of diagnosing disjunction failures. (So no more nonsensical ‘UInt8’ error messages.)
- We now present reasonable error messages for overload resolution failures, informing the user of partially-matching
parameter lists when possible.
At the very least, these changes address the following bugs:
<rdar://problem/15863738> More information needed in type-checking error messages
<rdar://problem/16306600> QoI: passing a 'let' value as an inout results in an unfriendly diagnostic
<rdar://problem/16449805> Wrong error for struct-to-protocol downcast
<rdar://problem/16699932> improve type checker diagnostic when passing Double to function taking a Float
<rdar://problem/16707914> fatal error: Can't unwrap Optional.None…Optional.swift, line 75 running Master-Detail Swift app built from template
<rdar://problem/16785829> Inout parameter fixit
<rdar://problem/16900438> We shouldn't leak the internal type placeholder
<rdar://problem/16909379> confusing type check diagnostics
<rdar://problem/16951521> Extra arguments to functions result in an unhelpful error
<rdar://problem/16971025> Two Terrible Diagnostics
<rdar://problem/17007804> $T2 in compiler error string
<rdar://problem/17027483> Terrible diagnostic
<rdar://problem/17083239> Mysterious error using find() with Foundation types
<rdar://problem/17149771> Diagnostic for closure with no inferred return value leaks type variables
<rdar://problem/17212371> Swift poorly-worded error message when overload resolution fails on return type
<rdar://problem/17236976> QoI: Swift error for incorrectly typed parameter is confusing/misleading
<rdar://problem/17304200> Wrong error for non-self-conforming protocols
<rdar://problem/17321369> better error message for inout protocols
<rdar://problem/17539380> Swift error seems wrong
<rdar://problem/17559593> Bogus locationless "treating a forced downcast to 'NSData' as optional will never produce 'nil'" warning
<rdar://problem/17567973> 32-bit error message is really far from the mark: error: missing argument for parameter 'withFont' in call
<rdar://problem/17671058> Wrong error message: "Missing argument for parameter 'completion' in call"
<rdar://problem/17704609> Float is not convertible to UInt8
<rdar://problem/17705424> Poor error reporting for passing Doubles to NSColor: extra argument 'red' in call
<rdar://problem/17743603> Swift compiler gives misleading error message in "NSLayoutConstraint.constraintsWithVisualFormat("x", options: 123, metrics: nil, views: views)"
<rdar://problem/17784167> application of operator to generic type results in odd diagnostic
<rdar://problem/17801696> Awful diagnostic trying to construct an Int when .Int is around
<rdar://problem/17863882> cannot convert the expression's type '()' to type 'Seq'
<rdar://problem/17865869> "has different argument names" diagnostic when parameter defaulted-ness differs
<rdar://problem/17937593> Unclear error message for empty array literal without type context
<rdar://problem/17943023> QoI: compiler displays wrong error when a float is provided to a Int16 parameter in init method
<rdar://problem/17951148> Improve error messages for expressions inside if statements by pre-evaluating outside the 'if'
<rdar://problem/18057815> Unhelpful Swift error message
<rdar://problem/18077468> Incorrect argument label for insertSubview(...)
<rdar://problem/18079213> 'T1' is not identical to 'T2' lacks directionality
<rdar://problem/18086470> Confusing Swift error message: error: 'T' is not convertible to 'MirrorDisposition'
<rdar://problem/18098995> QoI: Unhelpful compiler error when leaving off an & on an inout parameter
<rdar://problem/18104379> Terrible error message
<rdar://problem/18121897> unexpected low-level error on assignment to immutable value through array writeback
<rdar://problem/18123596> unexpected error on self. capture inside class method
<rdar://problem/18152074> QoI: Improve diagnostic for type mismatch in dictionary subscripting
<rdar://problem/18242160> There could be a better error message when using [] instead of [:]
<rdar://problem/18242812> 6A1021a : Type variable leaked
<rdar://problem/18331819> Unclear error message when trying to set an element of an array constant (Swift)
<rdar://problem/18414834> Bad diagnostics example
<rdar://problem/18422468> Calculation of constant value yields unexplainable error
<rdar://problem/18427217> Misleading error message makes debugging difficult
<rdar://problem/18439742> Misleading error: "cannot invoke" mentions completely unrelated types as arguments
<rdar://problem/18535804> Wrong compiler error from swift compiler
<rdar://problem/18567914> Xcode 6.1. GM, Swift, assignment from Int64 to NSNumber. Warning shown as problem with UInt8
<rdar://problem/18784027> Negating Int? Yields Float
<rdar://problem/17691565> attempt to modify a 'let' variable with ++ results in typecheck error about @lvalue Float
<rdar://problem/17164001> "++" on let value could give a better error message
Swift SVN r23782
The archetype builder is responsible for figuring out what should go
into a generic signature anyway, so move the generic signature
creation there. This will also allow us to eliminate some code
duplication across Sema and AST.
Fixes compiler crasher 033.
Swift SVN r23030
This will turn into "exactly" in a future commit, when we can build a
generic signature from an archetype builder (directly) and compare the
results.
Swift SVN r23010
Extend the contract for enumerateRequirements() a bit to preserve
archetype-to-archetype same-type constraints. Use that extra
information in the debug dump. NFC elsewhere.
Swift SVN r23008
This pushes some of the extra same-type requirements introduced in r22649 into the generic signature. Doesn’t really have an effect outside of extending generic signatures slightly.
Swift SVN r22680
When we have two protocol conformance requirements for the same type
T, and each of those protocols has an associated type with a given
(shared) name N, infer a same-type requirement between the two. Only
really enabled for testing now; it doesn't feed into general type
checking yet.
Swift SVN r22649
Whenever we add a requirement, we now know
(1) Why we added the requirement, e.g., whether it was explicitly written, inferred from a signature, or introduced by an outer scope.
(2) Where in the source code that requirement originated.
Also add a debugging flag for dumping the archetype builder information, so we can write tests against it.
This is effectively NFC, but it's infrastructure to help a number of requirements-related tasks.
Swift SVN r22638
This change includes a number of simplifications that allow us to
eliminate the type checker hack that specifically tries
AssertString. Doing so provides a 25% speedup in the
test/stdlib/ArrayNew.swift test (which is type-checker bound).
The specific simplifications here:
- User-level
assert/precondition/preconditionalFailure/assertionFailer/fatalError
always take an autoclosure producing a String, eliminating the need
for the StaticString/AssertString dance.
- Standard-library internal _precondition/_sanityCheck/etc. always
take a StaticString. When we want to improve the diagnostics in the
standard library, we can provide a separate overload or
differently-named function.
- Remove AssertString, AssertStringType, StaticStringType, which are
no longer used or needed
- Remove the AssertString hack from the compiler
- Remove the "BooleanType" overloads of these functions, because
their usefuless left when we stopped making optional types conform
to BooleanType (sorry, should have been a separate patch).
Swift SVN r22139
When the solver has attempted to produce a solution using the default
literal type tha has failed, dont' try every type that conforms to
that literal type. Instead, try the bridged class type (which deals
with the common AnyObject case) or one of two other options:
- For integer literals, try the default floating point type (Double)
- For string literals, try the standard library's AssertString (this
is a temporary hack)
This limits exponential blow-up in cases where the literal's type
cannot be determined from context. Addresses rdar://problem/18307267.
Swift SVN r22131
You'll notice that we already had tests that made it appear that such declarations could work,
but they were only avoiding crashes because downstream errors were already marking the
enclosing functions as invalid. (If the errors were fixed, they would also crash the compiler.)
This addresses crash suite scenario 018. (rdar://problem/18299547)
Swift SVN r22109
We don't properly open up the existential to make this work, which
leads to an IRGen crash. Reject the uses of generics that would cause
such a crash rdar://problem/17491663.
Swift SVN r21946
t2.swift:3:1: error: argument for generic parameter 'U' could not be
inferred
f(i)
^
t2.swift:2:6: note: in call to function 'f'
func f<T, U>(t: T) -> U? { return nil }
^
Our lack of decent locator information means that we don't get notes
in all of the cases we want them. I'll look at that separately.
Swift SVN r21921
Per API review with Ali. While we're here, give the initializer a corresponding 'rawValue' argument label, and change the associated type name to RawValue to match.
Swift SVN r21888
Redefine the RawRepresentable protocol to use an 'init?' method instead of 'fromRaw(Raw)', and a 'raw' get-only property instead of 'toRaw()'. Update the compiler to support deriving conformances for enums and option sets with the new protocol. rdar://problem/18216832
Swift SVN r21762
The syntax being reverted added busywork and noise to the common case
where you want to say "I have the right address, but the wrong type,"
without adding any real safety.
Also it eliminated the ability to write UnsafePointer<T>(otherPointer),
without adding ".self" to T. Overall, it was not a win.
This reverts commits r21324 and r21342
Swift SVN r21424
Previously, it was possible to write Unsafe[Mutable]Pointer(x) and have
Swift deduce the pointee type based on context. Since reinterpreting
memory is a fundamentally type-unsafe operation, it's better to be
explicit about conversions from Unsafe[Mutable]Pointer<T> to
Unsafe[Mutable]Pointer<U>. This change is consistent with the move from
reinterpretCast(x) to unsafeBitCast(x, T.self).
Also, we've encoded the operations of explicitly adding or removing
mutability as properties, so that adding mutability can be separated
from wild reinterpretCast'ing, a much more severe form of unsafety.
Swift SVN r21324
Start capitalizing on some of the new diagnostic machinery in a few different ways:
- When mining constraints for type information, utilize constraints "favored" by the overload resolution process.
- When printing type variables, if the variable was created by opening a literal expression, utilize the literal
default type or conformance if possible.
- Utilize syntactic information when crafting diagnostics:
- If the constraint miner can produce a better diagnostic than the recorded failure, diagnose via constraints.
- Factor in the expression kind when choosing which types to include in a diagnostic message.
- Start customizing diagnostics based on the amount of type data available.
What does all this mean?
- Fewer type variables leaking into diagnostic messages.
- Far better diagnostics for overload resolution failures. Specifically, we now print proper argument type data
for failed function calls.
- No more "'Foo' is not convertible to 'Foo'" error messages
- A greater emphasis on type data means less dependence on the ordering of failed constraints. This means fewer
inscrutable diagnostics complaining about 'UInt8' when all the constituent expressions are of type Float.
So we still have a ways to go, but these changes should greatly improve the number of head-scratchers served up
by the type checker.
These changes address the following radars:
rdar://problem/17618403
rdar://problem/17559042
rdar://problem/17007456
rdar://problem/17559042
rdar://problem/17590992
rdar://problem/17646988
rdar://problem/16979859
rdar://problem/16922560
rdar://problem/17144902
rdar://problem/16616948
rdar://problem/16756363
rdar://problem/16338509
Swift SVN r20927
To limit user confusion when using conditional expressions of type Bool?, we've decided to remove the BooleanType (aka "LogicValue") conformance from optional types. (If users would like to use an expression of type Bool? as a conditional, they'll need to check against nil.)
Note: This change effectively regresses the "case is" pattern over types, since it currently demands a BooleanType conformance. I've filed rdar://problem/17791533 to track reinstating it if necessary.
Swift SVN r20637
When a non-final class satisfies a method requirement that returns
Self, it must do so with a method that also returns (dynamic)
Self. This ensures conformance will be inheritable, closing off an
awful type-safety hole <rdar://problem/16880016>. Other
non-contravariant uses of Self in the signatures of requirements cause
the protocol to be unusable by non-final classes.
I had to leave a tiny little gaping hole for the ~> operator, whose
removal is covered by <rdar://problem/17828741>. We can possibly put
this on firm footing with clever handling of generic witnesses, but
it's not important right now.
Swift SVN r20626
