Anonymous objects in the scope of an inline functions are copied to
all call-sites. This makes them part of the public ABI of a Kotlin
library.
We introduce a flag to mark all classes in the scope of an inline
function. When compiling with assertions enabled, we check that
this flag is set whenever we inline an anonymous object from another
module.
Otherwise, R8 does not transform kotlin-reflect, failing bootstrap.
Leaving end label the same is safe, since we do not remove labels during
transformation.
Do not check, that all Unit predecessors are POPs. This is safe for the
same reason, as it is safe to allow some of ARETURN sources not be
suspension point results.
To elaborate, before Unit, the stack is empty. This is because if there
are multiple paths to Unit and at least one of them comes from POP after
suspension point (we are interested in this case only - otherwise, the
call is not tail-call), in path from said POP the stack is empty, since
after suspension point the stack contains only one element. Thus, the
stack in other paths leading to Unit has to be empty, otherwise, merge
operation is not possible and ASM will report error during analysis.
Since the stack is empty in all paths, we can hoist Unit and following
ARETURN to predecessors, effectively turning path from suspension point
to tail-call.
Since it's not feasible to support annotated types in 1.6, we're making
this an explicit error in 1.6, so that typeOf can become stable and this
feature can be supported in the future without breaking changes to the
existing code.
Note that extension function types are a special case of annotated
types. A separate error is created for them just because the message
"annotated types are not supported" would be confusing, since such types
don't have explicit annotations in the source code.
#KT-29919
Since they are not spilled, the logic for splitting LVT records, that
is applied for spilled variables, was not applied for known nulls.
Fix that by applying the logic to them.
#KT-47749
There used to be code that extended a previous range instead.
However, that does not work as that extension could have the
local cover code where it does not exists. Since we no longer
extend the range of locals, we should always introduce a new
one even if there was another one for a previous range.
Dmitry Petrov