Breaks `--trace` into two flags:
- `--parser_debug`, which sets the parser debug level (which I haven't dug into piping with `--trace`, but seemed likely to be troublesome)
- `--trace_file`, which now the type checker and interpreter will use for trace information (note compile errors should use a different channel)
Most of the file edits are just mechanical testdata flag updates: `sed -i 's/--trace/--parser_debug --trace_file=-/' testdata/**/*.carbon`
To explain the output paths:
- parse/compile errors: stderr
- print() calls: stdout
- parser tracing: `--parser_debug` option, stdout (formerly stdout if `--trace`)
- type check/compile tracing: `--trace_file=<file>`, giving `-` uses stdout (formerly stdout if `--trace`)
- return code of executed Carbon code: `--trace_file` if set, stdout if not (formerly stdout always)
I think lit_test accrued a bit of cruft as I switched approaches... I still may go further, but this is particularly fixing a bug where `FileCheck` (instead of `%{FileCheck}`) should've failed in tests.
- Rename `PointerValue` to `LValue` to reflect how it's actually used. We can introduce a `PointerValue` type when we add support for actual pointer values.
- Remove support for pattern assignment. It's unclear if Carbon will support this, and even if we do, it raises questions that should first be addressed in a language proposal, like "is the left-hand side of `(x, y) = (1, 2)` an lvalue, or a pattern, or both, or something else entirely?"
Rationale: Based on the status of #478 and #505, Carbon won't have this feature for a while, and it will be simpler not to support it on spec in the meantime.
I should emphasize that I am **completely cheating** here. This PR does not add support for actually _performing_ implicit conversions at run time, because the AST doesn't yet contain the necessary type information. At run time, code like `var p: Point = {.x = 1, .y = 2};` directly initializes the name `p` with the _struct_ value `{.x = 1, .y = 2}`; no object of type `Point` is actually created. I'm only getting away with this because we don't yet have any tests that can tell the difference.
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
There's a small update to update_checks.py to handle the recursive directories. Also, I'm only using one level of nesting in this PR but really no reason we can't do more. I'm just not sure what clustering is best right now.
As a pattern, I'm trying to name all failing tests `fail_*.carbon`.
josh11b
Jon Meow
Jon Meow