For FE 1.0, we just change super qualifier symbol to
base class, if it's possible.
For FIR, we introduce using of super qualifier symbols for
field accesses and repeat FE 1.0 behavior here.
#KT-49507 Fixed
For example:
foo(
// `if` joins A & B
if (condition)
run { ... } // A
else
run { ... }, // B
run { ... } // C
) // `foo` unifies `A & B` and `C`, so if it is not resolved itself,
// further `if`s, `when`s, safe calls outside it, etc. continue
// building the correct type predicate until the next completed
// call.
^KT-44512 Fixed
In DeserializedClassDescriptor and MemberDeserializer, only the
`contextReceiverTypeList` field was used, and not
`contextReceiverTypeIdList` which is used when `-Xuse-type-table` is
enabled. The convention is to use a bunch of utilities declared in
`protoTypeTableUtil.kt` which deal with both methods of reading types.
Also, simplify the deserialization code in FIR (which was correct for
some reason).
* wrong method was called from FirDataFlowAnalyzer.exitFunctionCall;
* map from function to affected properties should be keyed by symbol,
not FirFunction, as the latter may change;
* arguments of `return` and assignment statements should be visited,
as they may contain lambdas.
This is what Java 15+ does, and it permits accessing captured type
parameters via reflection. The alternative is to emit generic signatures
on the lambda methods, but that was disabled and I have no clue why.
^KT-52417 Fixed
- Get rid of SPECIAL mode (just left REGULAR and class-related instead)
- Clear naming
- Restore contexts after lambda/callable reference are processed
The test has been failing before this change because after
callable reference is resolved, its tower data context has been left
erroneously in the SPECIAL-related entry
If we want to analyse some function's call, we need to know about its
contracts, otherwise resolving the following code would be broken.
Computing return type of function is a prerequisite to using it in any
sensible way, so it's the best place to resolve it to CONTRACTS
KT-50733
Using `ownerLookupTag` might be wrong in case of private constuctors
of inner classes: their owner is an Inner class, but expected
dispach receiver is Outer
- use-site should be contained within the class that owns callee symbol
- class-representative of dispatch receiver value
should be exactly the same as a container class of a callee (not its subtype)
It leads to further infer type variable into those upper bounds which is forbidden
Substituted upper bounds is ok because specific substituted types came from constraints of other proper positions, or if specific substituted type is from declared upper bound too, then there should be another declared upper bound with no substitution
^KT-51464 Fixed
^KT-47986 Fixed
Mikhail Glukhikh