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'.
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
It's necessary for generic inline suspend as a codegen
for it uses binding slice SUSPEND_FUNCTION_TO_JVM_VIEW
to generate fake continuation parameter, so all the
descriptors that are used for body generation must be
obtained from the SUSPEND_FUNCTION_TO_JVM_VIEW
#KT-19528 Fixed
FixStack transformation divides on phases:
- Fixing stack before break/continue
- Fixing stack for inline markers/try-catch blocks
After the first stage all ALWAYS_TRUE markers are replaced
with simple GOTO's and if we're skipping break/continue edges
we won't reach the code after while (true) statement.
At the same time it's fine to not to skip them in the second phase
as the stack for them is already corrected in the first phase
#KT-19475 Fixed
Note that this isn't fully correct, consider the following situation:
S : T, T : Any?
=> CS(S, T) = T, but for now it will be T?, which is reliable but not so specific as just T
Problem manifests when a class property name matches a companion object
property name, and class property is referenced in closure context.
#KT-19367 Fixed Target versions 1.1.5
SAM interface wrapper for an argument is required,
if in the function descriptor for SAM adapter
type for the corresponding value parameter
doesn't match type of the corresponding value parameter
in the original (Java) descriptor.
#KT-19251 Fixed Target versions 1.1.5
Do the same thing as for secondary constructor (looks like it was a
workaround for R&I bug that was used only for secondary constructors
for some reason).
#KT-17464 Fixed Target versions 1.1.5
If 'this' (implicit or explicit) was used as an extension receiver,
and the corresponding call required a smart-cast,
this information was effectively lost in "old" resolution & inference,
but is required by "old" JVM BE to generate proper CHECKCASTs.
This makes sense for non-floating-point primitive type
(boolean, char, byte, short, int, long):
floating-point types use specialized versions of 'areEqual'.
The problem is that now that the local delegated property metadata is in
the $$delegatedProperties array of the containing class, the access to
it from code calling an inline function with a local delegated property
is illegal.
Currently it seems to be a lot of work to support this rather rare case
properly (see the comment in ExpressionCodegen.getVariableMetadataValue)
so we postpone it and return the old behavior of using the anonymous
KProperty subclass for metadata
Initialization of companion object members (e.g., delegate properties
using provideDelegate convention) can depend on property metadata array,
which in turn can be initialized before other class members.
#KT-18902 Fixed Target versions 1.1.5
As of Kotlin 1.0 and 1.1, expression 'a in x .. y' is considered
equivalent to 'x.rangeTo(y).a', and should be evaluated in the following
order:
1. x
2. y
3. a
4. compare x with a
5. compare y with a (if needed)
Dmitry Petrov