To allow us to start testing language changes tied to a future Swift 6 mode without actually *shipping* a Swift 6 mode to customers who might accidentally use it before it's ready.
This commit also adds parallel tests for a number of already existing (but untested) Swift 6 mode behaviors.
Now that we use the LLVM mono-repo, we don't need to worry about clang's
version number. Also, git has the ability to estimate the safe number of
digits a hash can be truncated to and now git estimates that large
projects like LLVM and Linux "require" 12 digits for safe commit hash
abbreviation. Let's stay a little ahead of the curve and statically
truncate to 15.
Until now, only ">=" was supported in #if swift() expressions, for example:
```#if swift(>=2.1)
```#endif
This means that if we want to evaluate code only when the language version is
less than a particular version we need to do the following:
```#if !swift(>=2.1)
```#endif
An alernative to make this more readable (the "!" can be easily missed in a code
review) is to introduce another supported unary operator, "<". The previous
example could be rewritten like this:
```#if swift(<2.1)
```#endif
This commit adds support for that unary operator, along with some tests.
LLVM r334399 (and related Clang changes) moved clang::VersionTuple to
llvm::VersionTuple. Update Swift to match.
Patch by Jason Molenda.
rdar://problem/41025046
Deserializing a witness record in a conformance may fail if either of the requirement or witness changed name or type, most likely due to SDK modernization changes across Swift versions. When this happens, leave an opaque placeholder in the conformance to indicate that the witness exists but we don't get to see it. For expedience, right now this just witnesses the requirement to itself, so that code in the type checker or elsewhere that tries to ad-hoc devirtualize references to the requirement just gets the requirement back. Arguably, we shouldn't include the witness at all in imported conformances, since they should be an implementation detail, but that's a bigger, riskier change. This patch as is should be enough to address rdar://problem/31185053.
Fixes:
https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3455https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3663https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4032https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4031
Now, compilation conditions are validated at first, then evaluated. Also,
in non-Swift3 mode, '&&' now has higher precedence than '||'.
'A || B && C || D' are evaluated as 'A || (B && C) || D'.
Swift3 source breaking changes:
* [SR-3663] This used to be accepted and evaluate to 'true' because of short
circuit without any validation.
#if true || true * 12 = try Anything is OK?
print("foo")
#endif
In this change, remaining expressions are properly validated and
diagnosed if it's invalid.
* [SR-4031] Compound name references are now diagnosed as errors.
e.g. `#if os(foo:bar:)(macOS)` or `#if FLAG(x:y:)`
Swift3 compatibility:
* [SR-3663] The precedence of '||' and '&&' are still the same and the
following code evaluates to 'true'.
#if false || true && false
print("foo")
#endif
Put in a general mechanism for mapping user-specified "compatibility
versions" to proper "effective versions" (what #if and @available
checking should respect). This may still be different from the
intrinsic "language version"; right now master is considered a "3.1"
compiler with a "Swift 4 mode", and we plan to ship a "4.0" compiler
with a "Swift 3 mode" that will have a version number of something
like "3.2".
rdar://problem/29884401 / SR-3791
The recent @escaping on variadic argument closures back-compat fix is
the first Swift 3.0 compatibility behavior that we don't want to carry
forwards indefinitely into the future. To address this, we
version-gate the diagnostic suppression.
Makes it an official compatibility check. Creates new test directory
for compatibility testing. Allow -swift-version 4 so that we can test
it both ways.
This flag switches the "effective language version" of the compiler,
at least to any version supported (as of this change: "3" or "3.0").
At the moment nothing uses it except the language version build
configuration statements (#if swift(...)) and various other places
that report, encode, or otherwise check version numbers.
In the future, it's intended as scaffolding for backwards compatibility.
Fixes SR-2582
...with a better message than the generic "older version of the
compiler" one, when we know it's actually a different version of
Swift proper.
This still uses the same internal module version numbers to check
if the module is compatible; the presentation of language versions
is a diagnostic thing only.
Speaking of module version numbers, this deliberately does NOT
increment VERSION_MINOR; it's implemented in a backwards-compatible
way.
This will only work going forwards, of course; all existing modules
don't have a short version string, and I don't feel comfortable
assuming all older modules we might encounter are "Swift 2.2".
rdar://problem/25680392
...because "build configuration" is already the name of an Xcode feature.
- '#if' et al are "conditional compilation directives".
- The condition is a "conditional compilation expression", or just
"condition" if it's obvious.
- The predicates are "platform conditions" (including 'swift(>=...)')
- The options set with -D are "custom conditional compilation flags".
(Thanks, Kevin!)
I left "IfConfigDecl" as is, as well as SourceKit's various "BuildConfig"
settings because some of them are part of the SourceKit request format.
We can change these in follow-up commits, or not.
rdar://problem/19812930
Introduce a new "swift" build configuration that guards declarations
and statements with a language version - if the current language version
of the compiler is at least that version, the block will parse as normal.
For inactive blocks, the code will not be parsed an no diagnostics will
be emitted there.
Example:
#if swift(>=2.2)
print("Active")
#else
this code will not parse or emit diagnostics
#endif
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0020-if-swift-version.md
rdar://problem/19823607
Bring this build setting in line with swift-compiler-version:
- Use "clang-compiler-version" instead of "repository_string"
- Don't append the clang compiler version to the swift one.
- Clean up uses in build-script-impl and build-presets.ini.
- Clean up uses in CMake
Swift SVN r32794
This is a WIP to make CompilerVersion more general.
- Rename CompilerVersion to just "Version"
- Make version comparison general and put _compiler_version special logic
with its second version component in a specialized parsing function
- Add a generic version parsing function
Swift SVN r32726
Internal compiler versions must be able to be packed into a 64-bit
value, and there is a limit on how many components we can use and which
values they can take on.
Versions must have no more than five components, assuming a version
X.Y.Z.a.b, where X, Y, Z, a, and b are integers with the following
inclusive ranges:
X: [0 - 214747]
Y: [0 - 999]
Z: [0 - 999]
a: [0 - 999]
b: [0 - 999]
Swift SVN r32724
To better indicate that the second _compiler_version component isn't
used in the ordering, warn and provide a fix-it replacement if it's
not a '*' in source code.
To make the diagnostics a little easier to emit, I cleaned up the
parsing code to use StringRef::split instead of a hand-written
tokenizer.
rdar://problem/23080845
Swift SVN r32673
Modeled after the same feature in Clang. Example (from swift -version):
Swift version 2.1 (LLVM bf75799360, Clang 340dfbb3d5, Swift 32557)
rdar://problem/22959963
Swift SVN r32625
