Also fix graphs for enums with specialized entries - since we don't
create property subgraphs for FirEnumEntry, there is no body to insert
AnonymousObjectEnterNode, AnonymousObjectExitNode, and
AnonymousObjectExpressionExitNode into.
Interpretation: a graph A is a subgraph of B if information available at
nodes of A depends on the paths taken in B. For example, local classes
are subgraphs of a graph in which they are declared, and members of
those classes are subgraphs of the local class itself - because these
members can reference captured values.
Consequences:
* if graph G is a subgraph of node N, then G is a subgraph of N's
owner;
* `ControlFlowAnalysisDiagnosticComponent` will only visit root graphs;
* `graph.traverse` will ignore subgraph boundaries, as if all subgraphs
are inlined into one huge root graph;
* if a control flow checker needs information from a declaration to
which a graph is attached, it must look at subgraphs explicitly.
For example, consider the `callsInPlace` checker. When a function
has a `callsInPlace` contract and a local declaration, the checker must
visit that local declaration to ensure it does not capture the allegedly
called-in-place argument - hence `graph.traverse` will look at the
nodes. However, the local declaration can also be a function with its
own `callsInPlace` contracts, so the checker should also run for it in
isolation. If that sounds quadratic, that's because unfortunately it is.
This removes the need for hacks around the order in which function
call arguments are visited, fixes called-in-place lambda arguments
for augmented assignment operators, and makes CFG dumps a bit prettier.
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.
The code was already duplicated between FirDataFlowAnalyzer and
FirReturnsImpliesAnalyzer, so might as well use the latter to slightly
speed up the former.
Make smart-casts non-transparent expression without delegation
to underlying FirQualifiedAccessExpression, as children delegation in
fir tree has unclear semantics
Remove two different kinds of tree nodes for smart-casts
Consider the following code:
```
fun test(a: List<String>) {
a.first()
}
```
The dispatch receiver type of `first` in this case is `List<T>` before
this change. After this change, it's `List<String>`.
In addition, this change also replace the dispatch receiver type with
the more specific type if available. For example, consider the following
```
class MyList: ArrayList<String>()
fun test(a: MyList) {
a.get(0)
}
```
The dispatch receiver type of `get` is `MyList`, instead of
`ArrayList<String>`. That is, a fake override is created in this case.
The fix is a bit hacky, but it's very simple. In addition, it still does
not handle the case where the receiver is a lambda function. But such
case seems to be fairly rare in practice.
Previously unsafe call is reported as part of InapplicableWrongReceiver.
This makes it difficult for the downstream checkers to report different
diagnostics.
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.
Update includes:
- Changing syntax of `OI/`NI` tags from `<!NI;TAG!>` to `<!TAG{NI}!>`
- Fix some incorrect directives
- Change order of diagnostics in some places
- Remove ignored diagnostics from FIR test data (previously `DIAGNOSTICS` didn't work)
- Update FIR dumps in some places and add `FIR_IDENTICAL` if needed
- Replace all JAVAC_SKIP with SKIP_JAVAC directive
Dmitriy Novozhilov