Printing a module as Objective-C turns out to be a fantastic way to
verify the (de-)serialization of foreign error conventions, so
collapse the parsing-driving Objective-C printing test of throwing
methods into the general test for methods.
Swift SVN r27880
Printing a module as Objective-C turns out to be a fantastic way to
verify the (de-)serialization of foreign error conventions, so
collapse the parsing-driving Objective-C printing test of throwing
methods into the general test for methods.
Swift SVN r27870
Another step toward using the conformance lookup table for
everything. This uncovered a tricky little bug in the conformance
lookup table's filtering logic (when asking for only those
conformances explicitly specified within a particular context) that
would end up dropping non-explicit conformances from the table (rather
than just the result).
Ween a few tests off of -enable-source-import, because they'll break
otherwise.
Swift SVN r27021
The string version of r26479. There's a lot of backstory and justification
there, so just read that commit message again. The one addition for String
is that global NSString constants are loaded as String as well, so that
also has to go through the bridging code even though there's no function
call involved.
Finishes rdar://problem/19734621.
Swift SVN r26510
...and similar for NSDictionary and NSSet.
For APIs that don't have a reason to distinguish "empty" and "absent" cases,
we encourage standardizing on "empty" and marking the result as non-optional
(or in Objective-C, __nonnull). However, there are system APIs whose
implementations currently do return nil rather than an empty collection
instance. In these cases, we recommend /changing/ the API to return the
appropriate "empty" value instead.
However, this can cause problems for backwards-deployment: while the API is
truly non-optional on system vN, a program may encounter a nil return value
if run on system vN-1. Objective-C can generally deal with this (especially
if the only thing you do is ask for the count or try to iterate over the
collection) but Swift can't. Therefore, we've decided to "play nice" and
accept nil return values for the collection types (NSArray, NSDictionary,
and NSSet) and implicitly treat them as "empty" values if they are the
result of an imported function or method.
Note that the current implementation has a hole regarding subscript getters,
since we still make an AST-level thunk for these in the Clang importer.
We can probably get rid of those these days, but I didn't want to touch
them at this point. It seems unlikely that there will be a subscript that
(a) is for a collection type, and (b) mistakenly returned nil in the past
rather than an empty collection.
There's another hole where an ObjC client calls one of these mistakenly-nil-
returning methods and then immediately hands the result off by calling a
Swift method. However, we have to draw the line somewhere.
(We're actually going to do this for strings as well; coming soon.)
rdar://problem/19734621
Swift SVN r26479
We have an SPI between the Swift compiler and Foundation based on the
SWIFT_SDK_OVERLAY_FOUNDATION_EPOCH preprocessor macro that allows us to
request the new API. rdar://20270080 tracks removing it.
Swift SVN r26475
...even if they were designated in the base class. (Unless they're required,
in which case they're still required.)
This led to Swift subclasses treating convenience initializers as
designated initializers, which (if synthesized) led to properties being
initialized twice.
rdar://problem/19730160
Swift SVN r25410
Swift's Dictionary and Set require their key and element type,
respectively, to be a Hashable type. When importing and bridging an
unspecialized NSDictionary or NSSet, we use 'NSObject' to ensure that
we have type that we know conforms to Hashable. Extend that logic to
specialized NSDictionary and NSSet imports, so that, e.g.,
NSDictionary<id<NSCopying>, V> gets imported as Dictionary<NSObject,
V> rather than the semantically-invalid Dictionary<NSCopying, V>.
Also, when importing a type that refers to an Objective-C type
parameter, don't introduce a typedef for the type parameter: just look
through it to the bound for now.
Swift SVN r24900
Previously, when dealing with CF typedefs of other CF types, we would strip
off the "Ref" suffix...and then leave it off when it came time to print the
Objective-C header.
rdar://problem/19446942
Swift SVN r24562
Rely on Foundation to provide NS_ARRAY/NS_DICTIONARY/NS_SET macros
that expand to either an unspecialized type (e.g., NSArray *) or a
specialized one (e.g., NSArray<T> *) as appropriate for the definition
of NSArray. Use these macros in the Objective-C printer.
The actual names and form of these macros is still to be debated, but
it's important to be able to handle both Clangs and Foundations with
and without parameterized NSArray/NSDictionary/NSSet.
Swift SVN r24198
When importing a specialized type for an Objective-C collection (e.g.,
NSArray<NSString *> *) that is being bridged to a Swift collection,
produce a more specialized Swift collection type (e.g., [String]) that
we would for the unspecialized type ([NSObject]).
The CMake and lit hackery is here because we need to be able to build
against versions of Clang that both do and do not have Objective-C
generics.
Swift SVN r24196
