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
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
This fixes a scenario when INVISIBLE_REFERENCE is suppressed, but we
resolved to the wrong overload because when none of the candidates were
applicable, more or less the first one was chosen.
Because we call `fullyProcessCandidate` on the candidates, their
applicability can change which can lead to a situation where the
applicability of a ConeAmbiguityError is different to all its
candidates. The changes in coneDiagnosticToFirDiagnostic.kt account for
that, otherwise code like candidates.first { it.applicability ==
CandidateApplicability.UNSAFE_CALL } can throw NoSuchElementException.
#KT-57776 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
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.
This also fixes some returnsNotNull contracts because the old code added
an implication that `== true` => `!= null` then promptly removed any
statement that this could've affected if the argument was a synthetic
variable.
^KT-26612 tag fixed-in-k2
If we want to analyse some function's call, we need to know about its
contracts, otherwise resolving the following code would be broken.
Computing return type of function is a prerequisite to using it in any
sensible way, so it's the best place to resolve it to CONTRACTS
KT-50733
* Change 1.6 to 1.7 constants
* Fix SAFE_CALL_WILL_CHANGE_NULLABILITY for testData
* Change EXPOSED_PROPERTY_TYPE_IN_CONSTRUCTOR_WARNING to EXPOSED_PROPERTY_TYPE_IN_CONSTRUCTOR_ERROR
* Change NON_EXHAUSTIVE_WHEN_STATEMENT to NO_ELSE_IN_WHEN
* Fix testData for SafeCallsAreAlwaysNullable
* Change T -> T & Any in test dumps
* Change INVALID_CHARACTERS_NATIVE_WARNING -> INVALID_CHARACTERS_NATIVE_ERROR
* TYPECHECKER_HAS_RUN_INTO_RECURSIVE_PROBLEM_WARNING -> TYPECHECKER_HAS_RUN_INTO_RECURSIVE_PROBLEM_ERROR
In order to make resolution still work for members not available from
`Nothing`, we track the type without `Nothing?` and use that for
resolution instead.
This directive anyway does not make test run twice with OI, and with NI
It only once run the test with specific settings (// LANGUAGE)
and ignores irrelevant (OI or NI tags)
This new kind of expression encompasses the nullability of the original
expression after null check (or equivalent `is Nothing?` check).
Unlike FirExpressionWithSmartcast, this expression won't be materialized
during conversion to backend IR. Also, Nothing? is discarded when
computing the intersection of possible types from smartcast info.
In that way, Nothing? is not used during resolution, while such
smartcast info is stored in it (and the expression kind itself).
Previously if an unsafe call is to an overloaded function, FIR checkers
report NONE_APPLICABLE. This change instead report them as UNSAFE_CALL
or its variants.
To do so, inside the root cause of inapplicable candidate errors,
we will record expected/actual type of receiver, if any.
That will help identifying inapplicable calls on nullable receiver.
Nikolay Lunyak