Because those test are single Java files, many of them use a top-level
class as a container for multiple classes to be tested. Such tests do
almost nothing if those nested classes aren't handled.
- Add utilities to add new attribute to ConeAttributes
- Get rid of FlexibleNullability attribute (it can be easily inferred
for any flexible type at any moment)
- Fix determining of EnhancedNullability attribute
This makes sense because this mode is the default in the production
compiler. Forgetting to enable it where necessary led to different
bizarre test failures, see for example changes around 3fee84b966 and
KT-34826
Really, this commit implements early J2K mapping for all Java types.
It's questionable and probably wrong at least for super-types,
because, for example, we cannot resolve spliterator() in classes
derived from java.lang.Iterable
In case Java enum has an abstract member, it has the ACC_ABSTRACT flag
set in the bytecode. However, we should still load it with final
modality to be consistent with Kotlin enums which are always considered
final
#KT-23426 Fixed
Main test data (testName.txt) a not totally valid cause of IDEA-205039.
Javac test data (testName.javac.txt) a not valid
cause of type annotations support absence.
Runtime tests are disabled cause reflection support absence.
Only invariant array projections and non-null element types will be
supported soon (see KT-26568), so it makes no sense to store the
complete type in KClassValue. What we need is only the ClassId of the
class, and the number of times it's wrapped into kotlin/Array, which is
exactly what ClassLiteralValue represents.
This change helps in decoupling annotation values from
descriptors/types. The only constant value that depends on descriptors
is now AnnotationValue.
#KT-26582 Fixed
As the type is anyway replaced with not-nullable version
explicitly, the only thing that changes is what type is loaded
for String[][].class:
- before it would be Array<Array<String?>?>
- now it's Array<(out) Array<(out) String!>!>
It's both a minor change and new behaviour can be considered
as correct
Mikhail Glukhikh