[libSyntax, tests] Preparations for verification of syntax tree on SILGen tests #16174
Conversation
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
libsyntax-silgen-preparation
branch
from
27d023b to
eb42a57
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
|
@eeckstein could you take a look at the update of sil gen tests? @ahoppen makes all silgen tests also libSyntax tests by ensuring we have no problem parsing those valid syntax. |
| @@ -476,7 +476,12 @@ | |||
| Child('Modifier', kind='DeclModifier', is_optional=True), | |||
| Child('AccessorKind', kind='Token', | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Not in this PR) This should be ContextualKeywordToken (when we implement libSyntax-based syntax-coloring)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll do that in a follow-up PR.
lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
Outdated
| SyntaxParsingContext BlockItemListContext(SyntaxContext, | ||
| SyntaxKind::CodeBlockItemList); | ||
| SyntaxParsingContext BodyContext(SyntaxContext, SyntaxKind::CodeBlock); | ||
| BodyContext.setDiscard(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please don't use setDiscard() here. Parsing this invalid code:
precedencegroup class {
garbage...
}loses roundtripness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. I thought it was only used in delayed function body parsing. Changed it to a TokenList.
| SyntaxKind::IdentifierExpr); | ||
| // Consume 'type' | ||
| keywordLoc = consumeToken(); | ||
| } |
| @@ -6,6 +6,6 @@ enum E<T>: Int { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // CHECK-LABEL: sil hidden @$S22enum_generic_raw_value1FO | |||
| enum F<T: ExpressibleByIntegerLiteral where T: Equatable>: T { | |||
| enum F<T: ExpressibleByIntegerLiteral>: T where T: Equatable { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Not in this PR) We should consider accepting optional GenericWhereClause inside GenericParameterClause. As long as we offer fix-it, it should be treated as well-formed syntax.
(I'm not against fixing SILGen tests in this PR.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I spoke with Argyrios about this and we decided not to support libSyntax parsing of Swift 3. It is being deprecated anyway and we will probably not be able to provide the coverage we will for Swift 4.
| prefix operator ~~~ | ||
| infix operator <*> | ||
| infix operator <**> | ||
| infix operator <===> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(But I don't want to accept {} for operator decls...) 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wanted to accept where clause in generic parameter clause, but I did not want to accept deprecated operator decl syntax.
This will parse the source file into a libSyntax tree and verify that no unknown nodes exist within it
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
libsyntax-silgen-preparation
branch
from
eb42a57 to
569a710
Compare
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
libsyntax-silgen-preparation
branch
from
569a710 to
dc3e43b
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
|
@eeckstein SILGen test changes look fine to me. |
These are a couple of minor fixes that will allow libSyntax to parse all the SILGen tests, in particular:
-verify-syntax-treefrontend flag that will parse the syntax tree and error if any unknown nodes exist within itArray<Int>.[])unsafeMutableAddress){}))in one testIn an upcoming PR I will flip the switch to always verify the syntax tree generated when parsing the SILGen tests. That way we should have a smoke test making sure that no new syntax gets introduced without libSyntax being able to parse it.