Before a import of, say "hello.dart" was printed as
"import './hello.dart'".
Now instead it is printed as "import 'hello.dart'".
At the same time we get rid of a dependency.
Change-Id: I352f0f507168fde75358704ec9bf0e248bb8179d
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/98480
Reviewed-by: Kevin Millikin <kmillikin@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Jens Johansen <jensj@google.com>
The code in class_hierarchy.dart that looped over override pairs
included implementations inherited from its superclass as potential
overriders, presumably in a broken attempt to include some interface
checks into the mix.
With this problem fixed, the special case in kernel_class_builder.dart
that excluded overriders not declared in the current class (i.e.
declared in a mixin) could be removed without incurring false
positives.
These override checks performed on members from a mixin produce an
extra context message indicating the class where the two members meet,
giving rise to the override relation (similarly to interface checks).
Since the same member can now override more than one member (or even
the same member more than once), the diagnostics message duplication
check has been extended to also include the context in the comparison.
Fixes https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/34235
Fixes https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/34285
Change-Id: I990e5719ae1749fd1aad1ad478aaa6e173cb170b
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/76900
Reviewed-by: Daniel Hillerström <hillerstrom@google.com>
When a member in the interface of a non-abstract class is found to
have an implementation with the correct name which does not override
the representative declaration of the member in the interface (and thus
has not been checked against that member for override validity), call
the override check to check interface validity.
Override relations thus checked produce an extra context message
explaining that the override relation must hold because both members
are inherited by a non-abstract class.
Fixes https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/32014
Change-Id: I955f057e35fa30f33c19da37c9cea1262042431c
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/74642
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Stefantsov <dmitryas@google.com>
Before this CL, if initializing from a dill file containing a class,
say A, but it wasn't used, and then later using it as a type, say
'A a = new A()', the class hierarchy would complain about not knowing A.
This was caused by the class hierarchy initially being constructed using
the full component of the first compile (i.e. in the example above
without any usage of A and thus without including A), and subsequent
compiles telling the class hierarchy about new classes created in that
compile. The problem was, that if the class was loaded from a dill file
(in the example above 'A' was such a class) it would never be included
if not a part of the first full component.
This CL fixes it by changing the interface to the class hierarchys
`applyTreeChanges` function and letting the class hierarchy know about
libraries too: It will now basically just be given the full component
when asked to update, and just update with the libraries it doesn't
already know about. In the example above that would - once using 'A' -
include 'A'.
Change-Id: I895100b51659938636da0bca6c80516d87b57a24
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/69302
Reviewed-by: Aske Simon Christensen <askesc@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Jens Johansen <jensj@google.com>
This CL turns the ClassHierarchy incremental and use that in two places:
* When compiling incrementally
* When performing the second ClassHierarchy computation after adding
forwarding stubs.
Change-Id: I7046d6be9d7673dc0783a98789b5a25183b44799
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/53804
Commit-Queue: Jens Johansen <jensj@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Aske Simon Christensen <askesc@google.com>
This CL:
* Removes unused functions in the ClassHierarchy
* Turns the data structures used in the ClassHierarchy upside down
(nodes have a lists of supers instead of lists of subs)
* Factors some things that needs the original list-of-subs into another
class that the user can ask the ClassHierarchy to compute if needed.
It appears that it isn't generally.
This is step #1 in turning the ClassHierarchy into an incremental
ClassHierarchy.
Change-Id: I48c5731c01c1b0e8bf1fcd4ddba7f2bf7ce3b9c9
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/53662
Commit-Queue: Jens Johansen <jensj@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Aske Simon Christensen <askesc@google.com>
Implemented more efficient way to iterate ClassSet in class_hierarchy.dart,
ClassSet becomes Iterable<Class>. This considerably improves speed of
ClosedWorldClassHierarchy.getSingleTargetForInterfaceInvocation() and
CHA-based devirtualization.
Time of CHA-based devirtualization on Flutter Gallery reduced
from ~13.4s to ~1.2s.
Also, ClassHierarchy used in devirtualization is configured to ignore
ambiguous supertypes to avoid crashes on Flutter Gallery.
Change-Id: Iaca251ca268aad3d8bb652247650096f19c25839
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/38960
Commit-Queue: Alexander Markov <alexmarkov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Vyacheslav Egorov <vegorov@google.com>
This method is no longer needed, since the front end iterates through
members directly to find cross overrides.
Change-Id: Ibc5180962a097c4d6194dbf4cbd1a0dea15050c2
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/13582
Reviewed-by: Konstantin Shcheglov <scheglov@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Paul Berry <paulberry@google.com>
This CL adds the ability to create a list of "forwarding nodes" for a
source class. A forwarding node is a data structure that will later
be resolved to either an explicitly declared member in the class or a
superclass, or to a forwarding stub. The idea is that we will create
the forwarding nodes at the time of outline building, and later,
during type inference, we will resolve each forwarding node as it is
encountered.
The reason we need to defer resolution of the forwarding nodes until
inference is because we may need to use the results of type inference
to determine which member a given forwarding node resolves to. For
example:
num f() => 1;
class A {
final x = 1; // Inferred type: int
}
class B {
final x = f(); // Inferred type: num
}
abstract class C implements A, B {}
We cannot determine at the time of building the outline for C whether
it inherits its x from A or B, because we need the results of type
inference to determine which of the two x's has a more specific type.
Note that some refactoring of ClassHierarchy was necessary in order to
allow the front end to maintain member lists in the same order used
internally by ClassHierarchy. This will let us avoid unnecessary
redundant sorting of methods.
Change-Id: Iee754957e0ad3b16c4b60608e17a4a7b0006dfb4
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/7851
Commit-Queue: Paul Berry <paulberry@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Konstantin Shcheglov <scheglov@google.com>
This CL adds a new target for kernel front-end, vm_precompiler. This is
an experimental target for new Dart VM precompiler pipeline which
will fully exploit strong mode type system and perform whole-program
optimizations.
As an example of such whole-program optimization, this CL adds
draft implementation of devirtualization of method invocations, which
uses single target computed by closed-world class hierarchy analysis.
Corresponding null checks (required for correctness) are not generated
yet.
Issue: https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/30480
Change-Id: I704cd16843a08f036a188b1188c80ee4dfbeab3b
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/3402
Reviewed-by: Vyacheslav Egorov <vegorov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Konstantin Shcheglov <scheglov@google.com>
This reverts commit e81deebfd8.
My reasoning in the above commit was wrong. Consider the following code:
class A {
void foo() {}
}
abstract class B extends A {
void foo([x]);
}
class C extends B {}
main() {
B b = new C();
b.foo(42); // BAD: A.foo can't accept arguments.
}
To ensure soundness, this code needs to be disallowed, and the current
mechanism for doing that is to use forEachOverridePair. Note that
forEachOverridePair is a bit of a misnomer; in addition to yielding
all pairs of methods (M1, M2) for which M1 overrides M2, it also
yields pairs of methods (M1, M2) for which the target class inherits
the concrete implementation M1, and M2 is part of the interface.
Technically this latter case is not an "override" but rather an
"implementation" (thanks to Lasse for pointing out this distinction).
However in both cases we need to do the same compile-time check to
ensure soundness: we need to check that the type of M1 is a subtype of
M2 (unless the check is suppressed by a "covariant" keyword). Hence
it makes sense for forEachOverridePair to cover both cases.
To ensure that the above example is properly rejected, it is crucial
that some invocation of forEachOverridePair yield the pair (A.foo,
B.foo). Prior to e81deebfd8,
forEachOverridePair(B) would not yield this pair, but
forEachOverridePair(C) would. After
e81deebfd8, both calls yield this pair.
When I made e81deebfd8, I failed to
notice that forEachOverridePair(C) would yield the pair, so I thought
there was a problem. So my "fix" was unnecessary. And it created a
fresh problem: it meant that the following code would be disallowed:
class A {
void foo() {}
}
abstract class B extends A {
void foo([x]);
}
class C extends B {
void foo([x]) {}
}
main() {
B b = new C();
b.foo(42); // OK: C.foo can accept an argument.
}
There is no a priori soundness reason for rejecting this code, and
according to Lasse, it has not yet been decided whether Dart 2.0 will
allow it.
This CL restores the old behavior. Rather than remove the test case
in e81deebfd8, it modifies it to
demonstrate why the old behavior was correct.
R=scheglov@google.com
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/3004023002 .
ClassHierarchy.forEachOverridePair contains special logic for unusual
cases like this one:
class A {
void foo() {}
}
class B extends A {
void foo();
}
main() {
B b = new B();
b.foo();
}
In this case, A.foo is considered to override B.foo (contrary to the
usual situation where the derived class method overrides the
superclass method). The reasoning is that calling foo on a concrete
instance of B will cause A.foo to be executed (as illustrated in
main); therefore A.foo is callable via the interface of B.foo, thus in
a sense A.foo "overrides" B.foo.
The code contained a questionable optimization, however; it only
executed this special logic if the derived class was concrete.
Presuambly the reasoning was that if B were abstract, then a concrete
instance of B could never be created, so this situation could never
arise.
However, there is nothing to stop a concrete class from being derived
from B, e.g.:
class A {
void foo() {}
}
abstract class B extends A {
void foo();
}
class C extends B {}
main() {
B b = new C();
b.foo();
}
Now, calling foo on a concrete instance of C will cause A.foo to be
executed (as illustrated in main); therefore A.foo is callable via the
interface of B.foo, as before. So we still need to report this as an
override pair even though B is abstract.
R=ahe@google.com, scheglov@google.com
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2998383002 .
The front end will need to use this method to iterate through the
interface of a class in order to determine when to create forwarding
stubs.
The functionality already exists; this CL merely exposes it and adds
tests.
R=scheglov@google.com
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/3003913002 .
Normally getters and setters are considered distinct and unrelated by
the type inference algorithm. However, if a getter has no declared
type and doesn't override anything, then we fall back on inferring its
type from an inherited setter, and vice versa.
R=sigmund@google.com
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2946733003 .
I need these tests in order to be sure that I understand expectations
of the ClassHierarchy interface, and to be able to test a lazy
implementation I'm going to create for incremental kernel generator.
I moved lub_test tests into this wider test suite.
Tests for forEachOverridePair() are not complete yet, just one path
is tested.
If there are any additional cases that you think should be covered,
please let me know.
R=ahe@google.com, kmillikin@google.com, paulberry@google.com, sigmund@google.com
BUG=
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2912173002 .
Jens Johansen