even when arguments are to be rearranged.
Lambdas have no side effects, and storing them in temporary variables
prevents processing in the backend
(such as inserting continuation parameter in AddContinuationLowering).
E.g. in the following code
fun x() {}
inline fun f() { x(); g() }
inline fun g() { x(); f() }
the old implementation of inline cycle detection bailed out after
generating 3 calls of x() in each function, while the new one stops
after 2. In other words, code generation for a single function is no
longer reentered.
The fields containing crossinline lambdas should be package-private to
avoid generating synthetic accessors, which break object regeneration.
Note that the inline methods cannot actually be called, as call sites
will attempt to read the captured lambda from a field through a *copy*
of the local containing the object, so these reads will not be inlined,
causing an exception at runtime:
inline fun f(crossinline g: () -> Unit) = object : I {
inline fun h() = g()
// effectively `val tmp = this; return tmp.$g()`:
override fun run() = h()
}
f {}.run() // NoSuchFieldError: $g
This particular example can be fixed by reusing locals for receiver
parameters in IrInlineCodegen, but explicitly assigning `this` to
another variable and calling an inline method on it will break it again.
(This is only applicable to the JVM_IR backend, as the non-IR one fails
to generate `f` at all for some other reason.)
1. Search for increment function in range element type, not in inferred
induction variable type
(which can be inappropriate, e.g., 'Nothing' in case of 'continue').
2. Handle nested loops with shared exit labels
(generated by JVM_IR for KT-37370 case).
KT-37370 KT-37373
Otherwise, the assumption that coroutine codegen makes about every
inlined function already having the markers breaks and it is no longer
true that calls to inline lambdas do not require them.
- Since neither IrProperty nor IrField is Type Parameter container
using of proprty's type parameter in IrField related code leads to
creation of "hanging" type parameters which should be considered as
incorrect IR.
- Such code designed to be prohibited in LV 1.5
- The fix makes use of erased type in such case
where type parameter is expected.
In case derived class has a field with the same name as the base class,
RenameFieldsLowering previously tried to rename one of the fields by
adding the "...$1" suffix, which led to NoSuchFieldError.
Introduce the notion of contagious for overridable declarations.
So, now overriding uncontagious declaration will not lead to becoming a declaration reachable.
By default, all declarations treated as contagious, it's not the most efficient, but it's safest.
In case when we access a declaration through a fake-override declaration,
the original (real) one will not be marked as contagious, so, later,
other overrides will not be processed unconditionally only because
it overrides a reachable declaration.
Even if a function is known to be tail call because it's a compiler
generated bridge, the tail return might still need to be added in case
of Unit return type.
Delaying suspend view generation until the inliner is not a good idea
because it prevents lowerings after AddContinuationLowering from
further transforming the declarations.
Georgy Bronnikov