Synthesized 'copy' introduces default values for parameters, which is
prohibited for regular overrides.
Report warning in language version 1.2-, error in 1.3+.
- do not allow it to be used together with JvmMultifileClass (otherwise
implementation becomes complex)
- do not allow to declare classes in a JvmPackageName-annotated file
(similarly, the implementation of this would be much harder in the
compiler, and there would need to be special support in the IDE)
- check that the value is a valid FQ name
- do not allow root package just in case
The main changes are in jvm_package_table.proto and ModuleMapping.kt.
With JvmPackageName, package parts can now have a JVM package name that
differs from their Kotlin name. So, in addition to the old package parts
which were stored as short names + short name of multifile facade (we
can't change this because of compatibility with old compilers), we now
store separately those package parts, which have a different JVM package
name. The format is optimized to avoid storing any package name more
than once as a string.
Another notable change is in KotlinCliJavaFileManagerImpl, where we now
load .kotlin_module files when determining whether or not a package
exists. Before this change, no PsiPackage (and thus, no JavaPackage and
eventually, no LazyJavaPackageFragment) was created unless there was at
least one file in the corresponding directory. Now we also create
packages if they are "mapped" to other JVM packages, i.e. if all package
parts in them have been annotated with JvmPackageName.
Most of the other changes are refactorings to allow internal names of
package parts/multifile classes where previously there were only short
names.
This annotation is currently internal because we only commit to its
support for our own libraries. It will be used to change JVM package
names of declarations in JDK-specific stdlib additions (now called
kotlin-stdlib-jre7/8), both to preserve source compatibility of the old
Kotlin code and to solve the split package problem (KT-19258)
Before this change, we were computing the visibility of an inherited
private property setter, and ISE at AsmUtil.getVisibilityAccessFlag
happened ("invisible_fake is not a valid visibility in backend")
Enum entries are "special" kind of singletons that should be
referenced as a captured 'this' instance inside during entry
initialization, because corresponding static fields in enum class
are not initialized yet.
#KT-7257 Fixed
In an inner class of the enum entry class, enum entry reference should
be generated as an outer 'this', not as a enum entry access, because
enum entry itself may be not initialized yet.
- Tell user what exactly is not supported (e.g., local inline function)
- Reduce diagnostics range to a keyword or an identifier
where appropriate
#KT-16223 Fixed Target versions 1.1.50
In Kotlin 1.1 and before, there were no nullability assertions on
extension receivers, because receiver is resolved with NO_EXPECTED_TYPE.
So, if an expression of platform type is passed as an extension receiver
to a non-private function, it would fail with IllegalArgumentException.
However, if the function is private, then we generated no parameter
assertions under assumption that such function can be called from Kotlin
only, and all arguments are checked on the call site. Thus 'null' could
propagate indefinitely.
In Kotlin 1.2, we do the following:
- Generate nullability assertions for expression receivers.
NB nullability assertions are stored for ReceiverValue instances, not
for expressions: given expression can act as receiver in different
calls, each with an expected receiver type of its own.
- Generate nullability assertions for extension receivers of private
operator functions.
NB it still can throw NPE for some particular "optimized" cases, but at
least those nulls would not propagate indefinitely.
This behavior is disabled by an "advanced" command-line option
'-Xno-receiver-assertions'.
Generate synthetic accessors for property accessors only if the
corresponding methods are accessible in the current context.
#KT-19306 Fixed Target versions 1.1.5
In the case the single parameter of override has `Integer` type instead
of `int` type (while in common case it would be just `int`)
See the comment inside forceSingleValueParameterBoxing for clarification
#KT-19892 Fixed
Dmitry Petrov