I created a second copy of each test where the output changes
after disabling parser lookup. The primary copy now explicitly
calls the frontend with -disable-parser-lookup and expects the
new diagnostics; the *_parser_lookup.swift version calls the
frontend with -enable-parser-lookup and has the old expectations.
This allows us to turn parser lookup on and off by default
without disturbing tests. Once parser lookup is completely
removed we can remove the *_parser_lookup.swift variants.
The VDUC was missing a class of AST nodes that can bind variables:
patterns in switch statements. For these, it was falling back to
requesting a simple replacement of the bound variable name with _. But
for patterns, this means there's a two-step dance the user has to go
through where the first fixit does this:
.pattern(let x) -> .pattern(let _)
Then a second round of compilation would emit a fixit to do this:
.pattern(let _) -> .pattern(_)
Instead, detect "simple" variable bindings - for now, variable patterns
that are immediately preceded by a `let` or `var` binding pattern - and
collapse two steps into one.
Resolves rdar://47240768
For context, String, Nil, and Bool already behave this way.
Note: Before it used to construct (call, ... (integer_literal)), and the
call would be made explicit / implicit based on if you did eg: Int(3) or
just 3. This however did not translate to the new world so this PR adds
a IsExplicitConversion bit to NumberLiteralExpr. Some side results of
all this are that some warnings changed a little and some instructions are
emitted in a different order.
Try to fix constraint system in a way where member
reference is going to be defined in terms of its use,
which makes it seem like parameters match arguments
exactly. Such helps to produce solutions and diagnose
failures related to missing members precisely.
These changes would be further extended to diagnose use
of unavailable members and other structural member failures.
Resolves: rdar://problem/34583132
Resolves: rdar://problem/36989788
Resolved: rdar://problem/39586166
Resolves: rdar://problem/40537782
Resolves: rdar://problem/46211109
If someone uses it twice, or on a non-final case, or tries to use it
with a multiple-pattern case, don't bother checking the exhaustiveness
of the switch. (For other violations, the pattern or where-clause is
ignored.)
https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-7409
Continue to emit notes for the candidates, but use different text.
Note that we can emit a typo correction fix-it even if there are
multiple candidates with the same name.
Also, disable typo correction in the migrator, since the operation
is quite expensive, the notes are never presented to the user, and
the fix-its can interfere with the migrator's own edits.
Our general guidance is that fix-its should be added on the main
diagnostic only when the fix-it is highly likely to be correct.
The exact threshold is debateable. Typo correction is certainly
capable of making mistakes, but most of its edits are right, and
when it's wrong it's usually obviously wrong. On balance, I think
this is the right thing to do. For what it's worth, it's also
what we do in Clang.
- Must be a single pattern
- Must be last in the switch
- Must not have a 'where' clause
- Must specifically be the "any" pattern if using 'case'
We may lift some of these restrictions in the future, but that would
need a new proposal.
The other half of '@unknown' in Sema. Again, the diagnostics here
could be improved; rather than a generic "switch must be exhaustive",
it could say something about unknown case handling known cases.
One interesting detail here: '@unknown' is only supposed to match
/fully/ missing cases. If a case is /partly/ accounted for, not
handling the rest is still an error, even if an unknown case is
present.
This only works with switches over single enum values, not values that
contain an enum with unknown cases. That's coming in a later commit.
(It was easier to get this part working first.)
This is our first statement attribute, made more complicated by the
fact that a 'case'/'default' isn't really a normal statement. I've
chosen /not/ to implement a general statement attribute logic like we
have for types and decls at this time, but I did get the compiler
parsing arbitrary attributes before 'case' and 'default'. As a bonus,
we now treat all cases within functions as being switch-like rather
than enum-like, which is better for recovery when not in a switch.
1. Make sure the actions taken by fixits are reflected in diagnostics messages.
2. Issue missing cases diagnostics at the start of the switch statement instead of its end.
3. Use <#code#> instead of <#Code#> in the stub.
This lets you match `case .foo` when `foo` resolves to any static member, instead of only a `case`, albeit without the exhaustiveness checking and subpattern capabilities of proper cases. While we're here, adjust the type system we set up for unresolved patterns embedded in expressions so that we give better signal in the error messages too.
This reverts commit dc24c2bd34.
Turns out Chris fixed the build but when I was looking at the bots, his fix had
not been tested yet, so I thought the tree was still red and was trying to
revert to green.
Parser now accepts multiple patterns in switch cases that contain variables.
Every pattern must contain the same variable names, but can be in arbitrary
positions. New error for variable that doesn't exist in all patterns.
Sema now checks cases with multiple patterns that each occurence of a variable
name is bound to the same type. New error for unexpected types.
SILGen now shares basic blocks for switch cases that contain multiple
patterns. That BB takes incoming arguments from each applicable pattern match
emission with the specific var decls for the pattern that matched.
Added tests for all three of these, and some simple IDE completion
sanity tests.
This stops emitting unhelpful diagnostics about “<<error type>>” (as in
SR-176) while still complaining about the switch itself and any other
errors in case bodies.
Revert "Make function parameters and refutable patterns always
immutable"
This reverts commit 8f2fbdc93a.
Once we have finally merged master into the Swift 2.2 branch to be, we
should revert this commit to turn the errors back on for Swift 3.0.
All refutable patterns and function parameters marked with 'var'
is now an error.
- Using explicit 'let' keyword on function parameters causes a warning.
- Don't suggest making function parameters mutable
- Remove uses in the standard library
- Update tests
rdar://problem/23378003
Make the following illegal:
switch thing {
case .A(var x):
modify(x0
}
And provide a replacement 'var' -> 'let' fix-it.
rdar://problem/23172698
Swift SVN r32883
- Improve handling of if_expr in a couple of ways: teach constraint simplification
about IfThen/IfElse and teach CSDiags about the case when the cond expr doesn't match
BooleanType. This is rarely necessary, but CSDiags is all about cornercases, and this
does fix a problem in a testcase.
- Be a bit more specific about the constraint failure kind (e.g. say subtype) and when
we have a protocol conformance failure, emit a specific diagnostic about it, instead of
just saying that the types aren't convertible.
Swift SVN r30650
