UncaughtExceptionPath edges are used to influence smart-casting within
catch and finally blocks. Previously these edges were added from every
node which could throw an exception. But only assignment nodes influence
smart-casts by resetting inference back to some less specific type.
Therefore, instead of tracking every possible node which could throw an
exception - even though almost every statement node can - only add edges
from assignment nodes to catch and finally blocks. This fixes many
missing exception cases and also reduces the total number of incoming
edges to catch and finally blocks.
#KT-56872 Fixed
In order to properly analyze top-level property initialization, a
control-flow graph must be created for FirFiles. This change adds the
foundation for the file CFG and updates body resolve to create the CFG.
Checking the CFG for proper initialization is separated into a following
change to ease code review.
KT-56683
When checking for class val property reassignment diagnostic, property
initializers should be treated as part of the class initialization.
However, property accessors should not. Previously, only the property
itself was checked for both of these situations and resulted in not
reporting diagnostic within property accessors.
#KT-59744 Fixed
This prevents `FirConflictsExpressionChecker.kt`
from missing conflicting local functions. It used
to due to inconsistencies in assigning `<local>`,
and this commit makes it a bit more
straightforward.
The change in KtClassTypeQualifierRenderer
prevents `FirOverrideImplementTest.testLocalClass`
from failing in `intellij`. It didn't fail for
callables, because `KtCallableSignatureRenderer`
doesn't try to render packages.
^KT-59186 Fixed
The change is needed for the parallel resolution (^KT-55750), so we can resolve the declaration
under a lock that is specific to this declaration.
Previously, if LL FIR was resolving some FirClass, LL FIR resolved all its children too, and it had no control over what parts of the FIR tree were modified.
The same applied to the designation path, sometimes the classes on the designation path
might be unexpectedly (and without lock) modified.
This commit introduces LLFirResolveTarget, which specifies which exact declarations should be resolved during the lazy resolution of the declaration.
All elements outside the declarations specified for resolve in LLFirResolveTarget, should not be modified.
The logic of lazy transformers is the following:
- Go to target declaration collecting all scopes from the file and containing classes
- Resolve only declarations that are specified by the LLFirResolveTarget, performing the resolve under a separate lock for each declaration
^KT-56543
^KT-57619 Fixed
I.e. emit VAL_REASSIGNMENT on repeated assignments to `this.something`,
UNINITIALIZED_VARIABLE on reads of it before any assignment if there is
no initializer, and CAPTURED_MEMBER_VAL_INITIALIZATION on assignments
inside non-called-in-place functions and named classes.
^KT-55528 Fixed
class C {
val x: Int
init {
// valid ways to initialize:
x = 1
this@C.x = 1
// invalid:
someOtherC.x = 1
run { /*this@run.*/x = 1 }
val self = this
self.x = 1
}
}
Quick quiz:
Q: In a CFG, what does `a -> b -> c -> d` mean?
A: `a`, then `b`, then `c`, then `d`.
Q: In a CFG, what does `a -> b -> d; a -> c -> d` mean?
A: `a`, then `b` or `c`, then `d`.
Q: So how do you encode "a, then (b, then c) or (c, then b), then d`?
A: You can't.
Problem is, you need to, because that's what `a; run2({ b }, { c }); d`
does when `run2` has a contract that it calls both its lambda arguments
in-place: `shuffle(listOf(block1, block2)).forEach { it() }` is a
perfectly valid implementation for it, as little sense as that makes.
So that's what union nodes solve. When a node implements
`UnionNodeMarker`, its inputs are interpreted as "all visited in some
order" instead of the normal "one of the inputs is visited".
Currently this is used for data flow. It *should* also be used for
control flow, but it isn't. But it should be. But that's not so easy.
BTW, `try` exit is NOT a union node; although lambdas in one branch can
be completed according to types' of lambdas in another, data does not
flow between the branches anyway (since we don't know how much of the
`try` executed before jumping into `catch`, and `catch`es are mutually
exclusive) so a `try` expression is more like `when` than a function
call with called-in-place-exactly-once arguments. The fact that
`exitTryExpression` used `processUnionOfArguments` in a weird way
should've hinted at that, but now we know for certain.
Brian Norman