 Ilmir Usmanov
|
129de76288
|
Value classes: Generate @JvmInline annotation for inline classes
but not for value classes.
Since inline classes and value classes share the same flag, we use
presence of the annotation to distinguish them.
|
2020-12-01 23:45:47 +01:00 |
|
|
Dmitry Petrov
|
89a0b3e944
|
Check class source in bytecode listing tests
|
2020-07-27 19:13:37 +03:00 |
|
|
Dmitry Petrov
|
2e31f95554
|
Update testData
|
2020-07-20 20:04:32 +03:00 |
|
|
Dmitry Petrov
|
17c15cfe0a
|
JVM, JVM_IR: update bytecode listing testData for inline classes
|
2020-07-02 22:39:06 +03:00 |
|
|
Dmitry Petrov
|
2137a4b1e5
|
JVM, JVM_IR: no nullability annotations on private and synthetic methods
NB it looks like it doesn't cover all cases, e.g., some synthetic
methods generated for suspend functions.
|
2020-06-26 18:51:35 +03:00 |
|
|
Dmitry Petrov
|
3f266aafb4
|
JVM: no nullability annotations on private and synthetic fields
|
2020-06-25 22:31:12 +03:00 |
|
|
Dmitry Petrov
|
cf70c83ab7
|
JVM: Update tests
|
2020-05-20 07:19:29 +03:00 |
|
|
Dmitry Petrov
|
ab90b2b901
|
Fix nullability propagation in inline class type mapping
#KT-27096
See https://jetbrains.slack.com/archives/C06E082M6/p1537949572000100
|
2018-09-28 10:46:42 +03:00 |
|