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
There are many complications with the current design of passing data
from within in-place lambdas to surrounding code. Solving these
complications will involve more time to investigation than is available
within the K2 release. So we are disabling passing type statement
information from lambdas for the time being until more time can be
devoted to a more complete solution.
^KT-60958 Fixed
^KT-63530 Fixed
See the comment at updateSubstitutedMemberIfReceiverContainsTypeVariable
It became necessary after delegate inference is rewritten, since before
that happened, stub types were being left there and FIR2IR handled
them accidentally properly because stub types are equal to anything.
But that wasn't really correct even there because stub types are not
intended to leak out of the FIR
^KT-61060
The main idea is getting rid of stub types and using just type variables
See more detailed description at docs/fir/delegated_property_inference.md
The problem with stub types is that they need really special treatment
in many places, and on the other hand, there are no clear contracts on
how they should work (that regularly leads to bugs like KT-59529)
^KT-61060 Fixed
^KT-61075 Fixed
^KT-61077 Fixed
^KT-59529 Fixed
^KT-61633 Related
^KT-61618 Related
^KT-61740 Related
^KT-59107 Related
^KT-61747 Related
^KT-61077 Related
^KT-61781 Related
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
Also fix graphs for enums with specialized entries - since we don't
create property subgraphs for FirEnumEntry, there is no body to insert
AnonymousObjectEnterNode, AnonymousObjectExitNode, and
AnonymousObjectExpressionExitNode into.
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.
The receiver of the provideDelegate call is the same FirExpression as
the delegate itself, so there's only one copy of the nodes in the first
place; trying to remove subgraphs completely detaches objects inside it
from the parent graph, which is not great for checkers.
Note that currently if provideDelegate is not selected, there will be a
stray FunctionCallExit node in the control flow graph. This commit *does
not change that*. It has been there for a while. Don't @ me. I'll try to
fix that. No promises.
The delegate is resolved in context-dependent mode and thus can be an
incomplete call; if there is no `provideDelegate` method to complete it,
the result is effectively `val x$delegate = y.id()` where `id` is
`fun <T> id(x: T) = x`, except we don't get a real node for `id` so the
DFA edges from lambdas in `y` go who knows where.
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.
Brian Norman