Fix a bunch of cases where we use the same external name to mean
multiple different things in the same test. We've historically gotten
away with this, but under `--share-cpp-ast`, it becomes an error, at
least if the entity is either defined in, or used from, C++ code.
Assisted-by: Gemini via Antigravity (original change) and Claude Code
(suggested edits in review)
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
This is similar to the previously-added support for accessing generic
carbon classes from C++, but with the specific defined by Carbon, rather
than being derived from template args supplied by clang in
`LoadExternalSpecializations`.
Example:
```carbon
class C(T: type) {
var t: T;
}
alias A = C(i32);
inline Cpp '''
void F() {
Carbon::A a;
a.t = 123;
}
'''
```
The check for a specific in `TryMapClassType` is unnecessary;
immediately after it calls `ExportClassToCpp`, which has the same check.
The latter also has a `context.TODO`, which provides a clearer error.
Also improved the `LocId` in `ExportClassToCpp` to use the location of
the first decl rather than the empty location of the class type. This is
the same fix as
https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/7533, just applied a
little more broadly. This makes the `context.TODO` above point at the
class rather than the start of the source file.
The specific location's not ideal (rather than the open curly, or
semicolon for a declaration - the two locations should be the `class`
and then the class name), but the same as we do for functions for now &
enough to get by.
This specifically also fixes a crash I found due to dtors being
generated without a location (because implicitly created functions would
use the class's location), creating a function call without a debug
location, which fails the LLVM IR verifier.
Implement the toolchain side of proposal #7254, removing the `:!`
binding
syntax for generic and template parameters in favor of the keywords
`generic`,
`template`, and `runtime` plus contextual defaults for phase.
For valid programs this is semantics-preserving: each binding resolves
to the
same phase, and produces the same SemIR, as it did under `:!`/`:`. The
parser
derives a binding's phase from its syntactic context plus any explicit
phase
keyword; new diagnostics and error recovery for misused keywords are
described
below.
Implementation details for each component:
- Lexer: remove the `:!` (`ColonExclaim`) token, move its virtual
parse-node
budget onto `:`, and add the `generic` and `runtime` keywords.
- Parser: thread a `BindingContext` (`ExplicitParam`, `DeducedParam`, or
`CompileTimeEntityParam`) from declaration introducers down through
parameter
lists to each binding pattern, using a one-token lookahead to
distinguish a
name-qualifier parameter list from a declaration's own final list.
Parameters
of a compile-time entity (`class`, `interface`, `constraint`, `choice`,
`alias`, `export`, `namespace`) and deduced `[]` parameters default to
checked
generic; explicit function parameters and local bindings default to
runtime.
`HandleBindingPattern` resolves the phase from that context plus the
keyword: a
`generic` keyword needs no node of its own (the phase is carried by the
binding's node kind), while a `runtime` keyword is preserved as a
`RuntimeBindingName` node so `check` can name it in a diagnostic. A
phase
keyword that is merely redundant with the contextual default is
diagnosed
here, without invalidating the parse tree.
- Check: a phase keyword that is invalid for its context (for example
`runtime`
on a checked-generic parameter) is diagnosed here, and recovers by
building an
error binding that still introduces the name so that later uses of it do
not
produce cascading errors.
The removed `:!` syntax is now rejected as an ordinary parse error.
The `form`/`:?`/`->?` ("extended types") portion of proposal #7254 is
left for a
separate change.
Assisted-by: Claude Code
Implement the alias rules from proposal #5389, wherein an alias is
permitted so long as the target has a constant value. While that
proposal is not yet accepted, this seems like a reasonable basis for
further iteration, and will be useful for the examples we're currently
pursuing.
Richard SmithandChandler Carruth
Nicholas Bishop
David Blaikie