This was born out of wanting FunctionDeclaration to explicitly have a Block for a body, and became a bit more of specifying types around. Note this forces exec_program to generate a Block for print()'s body, which is probably more correct as now we can expect a standard FunctionDeclaration AST structure, even for the built-ins.
There is a syntactic change here: a continuation's body is now a Block, not just a Statement. I've added an example disallowed test case. I think this is more reasonable syntax.
Other than that, note that optional_else now generates a valid Block. This has me thinking about whether we can eliminate Sequence, but that seemed well out of scope for this.
This lets us statically distinguish between code that works with arbitrary `Address`es and code that can only work with pointers to separately-allocated storage, and so we no longer need to worry about the latter code crashing at run-time (as `Heap::Deallocate` did) or silently doing the wrong thing (as `Heap::PrintAddress` did) if it's given the wrong kind of `Address`.
Arguably missed in #769
Note, this is reminding me we have more class members to rename for `_`, but I felt it's best to use the new naming instead of adding more to clean up.
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.
`// NOLINT` is added on type aliases in stack.h and dictionary.h to allow lower_snake_case naming -- this didn't feel like a check worth disabling in spite of false positives.
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
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>
Prior to this change, `__await` would make a deep copy of the continuation stack, but shallow-copy the individual stack frames within it. As a result, continuations appeared to have shallow semantics so long as the continuation stack had only a single frame.
This change also removes an obsolete test from the brief period when we intended continuations to have deep-copy semantics, which has been passing basically by accident.
The LLVM-13 release is now on Homebrew, so switch to it. This is
important because our CI only installs the latest version currently.
If you hit issues after this, make sure to update your Homebrew install
to get the latest Clang release. You can always directly set `CC` in
your environment to use a specific `clang` compiler.
This list was extracted from currently-approved proposals and
corresponding design documents. This is intended to be a summary of the
status quo, not a change.
- Replace obsolete references to the arbiters, and clarify that the appeals process will be available once the leads are separate from the conduct team.
- Document that leads, like conduct team members, will be excluded from discussions/decisions that concern them.
Previously, the program exit was triggered by the destructor.
Unfortunately, C++ doesn't make it precisely clear where the destructor
is run, and Clang doesn't generate reliable debug information for that
to give good backtraces. Among other things, when combining separate
cleanup regions in Clang there may be no single canonical location.
Instead, move the ExitingStream system to use an explicit
low-precedence operator overload to flush the output and exit. This
ensures the stream and other actions are completed first but then
immediately exits the program in a way that has a definitive source
location and produces reliable backtraces.
I've tried to add comments and helpers to make this as clear as possible
given that it is a subtle and surprising issue.
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
Jon Meow
Geoff Romer
josh11b
Chandler Carruth
Richard Smith