The test is conditionally XFAILed for the release configuration only,
but using `expectCrash(executing:)` make it fail even in release mode,
but for a wrong reason (`expectUnreachable()` is unconditional).
* Eradicate IndexDistance associated type, replacing with Int everywhere
* Consistently use Int for ExistentialCollection’s IndexDistance type.
* Fix test for IndexDistance removal
* Remove a handful of no-longer-needed explicit types
* Add compatibility shims for non-Int index distances
* Test compatibility shim
* Move IndexDistance typealias into the Collection protocol
* [Foundation] Byte access and methods that funnel to byte access for slices of discontiguous data (ala backed by dispatch_data_t) should void heap corruption and walking off the ends of buffers
* add missing parens on test_byte_access_of_discontiguousData
* Use the proper byte count in testing
Using && here causes us to go down a SILGen path that guarantees that self will
be evaluated over the entire && expression instead of just the LHS. This cause
the uniqueness check to always return false at -Onone. At -O, the optimizer is
smart enough to remove this issue.
rdar://33358110
Something has changed with newer versions of LLVM so that the
stdlib/SwiftObjectNSObject.swift test fails on the master-next branch
because the @objc thunk functions all get merged together. That is a good
thing for code size but it breaks some of the checks in this test that
compare the function pointers to verify that overrides are correct.
Make each function different so they cannot be merged.
For Swift 3 / 4:
Deprecate the spelling "ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional", emitting a warning
and suggesting "!" in places where they are allowed according to
SE-0054.
In places where SE-0054 disallowed IUOs but we continued to accept them
in previous compilers, emit a warning suggesting "Optional" or "?" as
an alternative depending on context and treat the IUO as an Optional,
noting this in the diagnostic.
For Swift 5:
Treat "ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional" as an error, suggesting
"!" in places where they are allowed by SE-0054.
In places where SE-0054 disallowed IUOs, emit an error suggestion
"Optional" or "?" as an alternative depending on context.
Consider different overload choices for the same location in evaluation
order, this makes overload resolution more predictable because it's going
to follow expression bottom-up, that prevents situations when some
expressions are considered ambigious because choices taken further up
equate the score, instead each level is given distinct weight
based on evaluation order.
Resolves: rdar://problem/31888810
This includes functions without type parameters that are generic
because they are members of a generic context. This addresses a
diagnostics regression because the '==' operators for Optional, Array,
and Dictionary were made into members.
The resulting error message is a little ugly, but is more informative
(and much shorter) than what we had before.
