We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
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
The etymology of these terms isn't about race, but "black" = "blocked"
and "white" = "allowed" isn't really a good look these days. In most
cases we weren't using these terms particularly precisely anyway, so
the rephrasing is actually an improvement.
Recently support was added for '-swift-version 5' to the frontend.
Right now we only have an isSwiftVersion3() check which returns 'true'
if the version is 3, and returns 'false' if it is 4 or 5. This was used
during Swift 4.0 development to guard various legacy behaviors that we
wish to deprecate.
Going forward, when do not want to add isSwiftVersion4() and
isSwiftVersion5() checks, because they're too fragile; if a new
behavior is introduced in Swift 5 that we wish to disable in Swift 3
and Swift 4 mode, checking for isSwiftVersion5() is insufficient,
because eventually Swift 6 will roll around, and presumably one would
expect the new behavior to take effect in Swift 6 mode as well.
I think a better solution is a 'isSwiftVersionAtLeast()' check, which
checks if the major version number is greater than or equal to the
given value.
We could refactor the existing 'isSwiftVersion3()' checks to instead
do '!isSwiftVersionAtLeast(4)', but I'm going to hold off on doing that
for now.
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
- Added missing ifdef guard in PointerIntEnum header
- Consistent naming convention for ifdef guards
- Consistent 'end namespace swift'
- Consistent single EOL at end of header files
...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
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
A couple of small tweaks to _compiler_version based on review comments:
- Fix &&/|| rejection to work with _compiler_version on either side of the
expression. Also add some test cases around this.
- Use clang/LLVM facilities for isdigit and atoi.
- Assert if parsing an invalid version string and there is no diagnostic
engine.
- Clean up some crumbs in the CMake configs.
rdar://problem/22730282
Swift SVN r32212
This configuration clause will suppress lex diagnostics and skip parsing
altogether if the code under the clause isn't active - the compiler must
have a repository version greater than or equal to the version given to
_compiler_version.
This option is only meant to be used sparingly and not to track the
Swift *language* version.
Example, if using a compiler versioned 700.0.28:
#if _compiler_version("700.0.23")
print("This code will compile for versions 700.0.23 and later.")
#else
This + code + will + not + be + parsed
#endif
Included are new diagnostics for checking that the version is formatted
correctly and isn't empty.
New tests:
- Compiler version comparison unit tests
- Build configuration diagnostics
- Skipping parsing of code under inactive clauses
rdar://problem/22730282
Swift SVN r32195
This is meant to be utilized for a narrow set of scenarios specific to dogfooding our pre-1.0 compiler, so please do not take any dependencies on this. In fact, I'll be removing this in the next milestone. (See rdar://problem/16380797.)
Also included - improve error recovery when parsing broken build configuration clauses.
Swift SVN r15694
- Added a couple of new targets:
- libswiftDriver, which contains most of the driver implementation
- swift_driver, which produces the actual executable
- Added centralized version information into libswiftBasic.
- Added a new "Driver Design & Internals" document, which currently describes
the high-level design of the Swift driver.
- Implemented an early version of the functionality of the driver, including
versions of the Parse, Pipeline, Bind, Translate, and Execute driver stages.
Parse, Pipeline, and Bind are largely implemented; Translate and Execute are
early placeholders. (Translate produces "swift_driver --version" and "ld -v"
commands, while Execute performs all subtasks sequentially, rather than in
parallel.)
This is just the starting point for the Swift driver. Tests for the existing
behavior are forthcoming.
Swift SVN r10933
