The primary constructor of a class needs to be the first subgraph of the
class control-flow graph. Based on the Kotlin specification, class
initialization order goes first primary constructor, in-place
declarations (properties and init blocks), and then secondary
constructors. If the class doesn't have a primary constructor, then it
is just skipped in the order.
Unfortunately, the class control-flow graph had in-place declarations
first and then all constructors. Instead, we should treat the primary
constructor as the first in-place declaration, and then continue with
the existing processing as secondary constructors. This will guarantee
that super constructor calls have the correct property initialization
information.
^KT-65093 Fixed
In order to properly analyze top-level property initialization, a
control-flow graph must be created for FirFiles. This change adds the
foundation for the file CFG and updates body resolve to create the CFG.
Checking the CFG for proper initialization is separated into a following
change to ease code review.
KT-56683
Inject delegated constructor and other in-place initializer sub-graphs
after the delegated constructor call node. This ensures property
initialization and use is calculated correctly when there are complex
calculations for the arguments to the delegated constructor.
#KT-59708 Fixed
#KT-59832 Fixed
It's very slow and leads to performance problems (see KT-58125)
Instead, we do the following:
- For a fully resolved type qualifier, when we want to resolve its part,
we are looking for the corresponding symbol by traversing nested classes
bottom up.
- For an error qualifier, we are trying to resolve the maximum possible
qualifier in the types transformer where all the type scopes are
already available.
^KT-58125 fixed
The change is needed for the parallel resolution (^KT-55750), so we can resolve the declaration
under a lock that is specific to this declaration.
Previously, if LL FIR was resolving some FirClass, LL FIR resolved all its children too, and it had no control over what parts of the FIR tree were modified.
The same applied to the designation path, sometimes the classes on the designation path
might be unexpectedly (and without lock) modified.
This commit introduces LLFirResolveTarget, which specifies which exact declarations should be resolved during the lazy resolution of the declaration.
All elements outside the declarations specified for resolve in LLFirResolveTarget, should not be modified.
The logic of lazy transformers is the following:
- Go to target declaration collecting all scopes from the file and containing classes
- Resolve only declarations that are specified by the LLFirResolveTarget, performing the resolve under a separate lock for each declaration
^KT-56543
^KT-57619 Fixed
Interpretation: a graph A is a subgraph of B if information available at
nodes of A depends on the paths taken in B. For example, local classes
are subgraphs of a graph in which they are declared, and members of
those classes are subgraphs of the local class itself - because these
members can reference captured values.
Consequences:
* if graph G is a subgraph of node N, then G is a subgraph of N's
owner;
* `ControlFlowAnalysisDiagnosticComponent` will only visit root graphs;
* `graph.traverse` will ignore subgraph boundaries, as if all subgraphs
are inlined into one huge root graph;
* if a control flow checker needs information from a declaration to
which a graph is attached, it must look at subgraphs explicitly.
For example, consider the `callsInPlace` checker. When a function
has a `callsInPlace` contract and a local declaration, the checker must
visit that local declaration to ensure it does not capture the allegedly
called-in-place argument - hence `graph.traverse` will look at the
nodes. However, the local declaration can also be a function with its
own `callsInPlace` contracts, so the checker should also run for it in
isolation. If that sounds quadratic, that's because unfortunately it is.
Quick quiz:
Q: In a CFG, what does `a -> b -> c -> d` mean?
A: `a`, then `b`, then `c`, then `d`.
Q: In a CFG, what does `a -> b -> d; a -> c -> d` mean?
A: `a`, then `b` or `c`, then `d`.
Q: So how do you encode "a, then (b, then c) or (c, then b), then d`?
A: You can't.
Problem is, you need to, because that's what `a; run2({ b }, { c }); d`
does when `run2` has a contract that it calls both its lambda arguments
in-place: `shuffle(listOf(block1, block2)).forEach { it() }` is a
perfectly valid implementation for it, as little sense as that makes.
So that's what union nodes solve. When a node implements
`UnionNodeMarker`, its inputs are interpreted as "all visited in some
order" instead of the normal "one of the inputs is visited".
Currently this is used for data flow. It *should* also be used for
control flow, but it isn't. But it should be. But that's not so easy.
BTW, `try` exit is NOT a union node; although lambdas in one branch can
be completed according to types' of lambdas in another, data does not
flow between the branches anyway (since we don't know how much of the
`try` executed before jumping into `catch`, and `catch`es are mutually
exclusive) so a `try` expression is more like `when` than a function
call with called-in-place-exactly-once arguments. The fact that
`exitTryExpression` used `processUnionOfArguments` in a weird way
should've hinted at that, but now we know for certain.
That issue might be fixed via changing
TypeVariableMarker.shouldBeFlexible at ConeConstraintSystemUtilContext
but this and some other tricks have been added because of incorrect
handling of constraints where type variable has a flexible bound
^KT-51168 Fixed
In qualified expression like `foo().`, selector expression is null.
Because of that the whole expression was marked as an error FIR
expression, and `foo()` part was not resolved at all (including
arguments and everything else).
This commit fixes the problem by providing receiver's FIR expression
as an underlying expression for error FIR expression. That way
it will be seen by all resolve transformers and will be successfully
resolved.
^KTIJ-21484 Fixed
1. Inner class constructor should have its outer class as a dispatch
receiver, since it is necessary for the call. Before it was null
2. Substituted inner class constructor should have its original dispatch
receiver type with the proper substitution. Before it was set to the
class itself (since the class was usually passed as a new dispatch
receiver)
Also, modify FIR renderer, so it properly renders the dispatch receiver
of the constructors
Consider the following code:
```
fun test(a: List<String>) {
a.first()
}
```
The dispatch receiver type of `first` in this case is `List<T>` before
this change. After this change, it's `List<String>`.
In addition, this change also replace the dispatch receiver type with
the more specific type if available. For example, consider the following
```
class MyList: ArrayList<String>()
fun test(a: MyList) {
a.get(0)
}
```
The dispatch receiver type of `get` is `MyList`, instead of
`ArrayList<String>`. That is, a fake override is created in this case.
Brian Norman