When checking for control flow falling off a function after a `match`, determine whether it's possible for no case to have matched. Using the same implementation, also detect whether `case`s in a `match` are unreachable.
For now, the implementation never considers a match against specific values for any type other than tuples, alternatives, and `bool` to be exhaustive. In particular, matching against the sole value `{}` of type `{}` is not considered exhaustive. This is probably best left until explorer supports matching on struct and maybe class types more generally.
This implementation closely follows the algorithm described in the paper [Warnings for pattern matching](http://moscova.inria.fr/~maranget/papers/warn/warn.pdf) by Luc Maranget. Various optimizations are possible, such as reducing the amount of copying done, but for the purposes of explorer, comprehensibility is being favored over efficiency.
The problem is, perhaps surprisingly, co-NP-hard (by reduction to the tautology problem for disjunctive normal form, which is in turn dual to the satisfaction problem for conjunctive normal form, which is well-known to be NP-hard). The algorithm is therefore exponential-time in the worst case, but seems to be well-studied and performs well enough on non-pathological examples. Nonetheless, a depth limit has been imposed to prevent pathological examples such as those generated by a fuzzer from causing long runtimes.
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
This allows us to combine multiple Errors together without repeating the prefix
information. Also fixes several cases where two "COMPILATION ERROR" prefixes
would be prepended to the same message when errors with prefixes and locations
were produced by the lexer and parser.
Support is added for all of the non-type expression contexts where we currently accept built-in conversions, such as reordering the fields in a struct.
Richard SmithandJon Ross-Perkins