[AutoDiff] factor derivative typechecking helper out of AttributeChecker #28879
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In order to allow a
@derivative
in one file to define the derivative of a function in another file, we nned to calculate the derivative configurations of all the@derivative
attributes in the module, not just those in the primary file (see #28790 for a work in progress of this).AttributeChecker::visitDerivativeAttr
is the function that does the necessary calculation, so this PR factors it into a separate function that others can call to do the calculation. This PR makes a few changes to the logic:ASTContext::DerivativeAttrs
now stores a set of all attributes per configuration, because otherwise you get buggy order-dependent behavior in the duplicate attr check when you calltypeCheckDerivativeAttr
multiple times per attribute.typeCheckDerivativeAttr
returns a boolean indicating error instead of callingattr->setInvalid()
so that non-AttributeChecker
callers can leaveattr->setInvalid()
to theAttributeChecker
.Note: This PR makes the
AttributeChecker
no longer usediagnoseAndRemoveAttr()
, so you don't get a "fixItRemove" on the diagnostics any more. Keeping it would make the refactoring a bit more complicated, and I don't think it's that valuable to keep, because in many of the error cases removing the attribute isn't really the right way to fix things.