9 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Brian Norman b2041e0927 [FIR] Disable data flow from in-place lambdas
There are many complications with the current design of passing data
from within in-place lambdas to surrounding code. Solving these
complications will involve more time to investigation than is available
within the K2 release. So we are disabling passing type statement
information from lambdas for the time being until more time can be
devoted to a more complete solution.

^KT-60958 Fixed
^KT-63530 Fixed
2023-12-14 16:40:27 +00:00
Brian Norman 0881910a1b [FIR] Rewind DFA after call arguments for correct receiver smartcasting
^KT-63709 Fixed
2023-12-08 14:32:22 +00:00
Brian Norman b55fda0c55 [FIR] Create CFG for files to track top-level property initialization
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
2023-08-31 12:50:52 +00:00
pyos e86b87fe0b Test: FIR CFA: fix the names of some nodes 2023-01-10 15:40:52 +02:00
pyos 54f32a6fba Test: FIR CFA: index nodes in rendering order 2023-01-10 15:40:49 +02:00
pyos faf0129a5d Test: FIR CFA: sort edges by style & target node id 2023-01-10 15:40:46 +02:00
pyos c4c05f5248 FIR CFG: remove ordering from control flow through in-place lambdas
Old graph:

  arg -> lambda enter -> ... -> lambda exit -> lambda enter -> ... ->
   -> lambda exit -> call

New graph:

  arg -+-> lambda enter -> ... -> lambda exit -+-> call
       \-> lambda enter -> ... -> lambda exit -/
2022-12-08 10:19:31 +00:00
pyos a9be27e330 FIR CFG: add union nodes
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.
2022-12-08 10:19:29 +00:00
Dmitriy Novozhilov 9b00776dba [FIR] Create CFG node for ::class calls 2021-07-23 12:20:39 +03:00