This will probably need more work, as moving doesn't appear to do
quite the right thing yet in general, and we should also check
somewhere that we're not, for example, moving out the content out of
an immutable field (probably moving out of fields is not okay in
general).
Non-copyability is not enforced yet, and something is still flaky with
dropping of the internal value, so don't actually use them yet. I'm
merging this in so that I don't have to keep merging against new
patches.
Modified typestate to throw away any constraints mentioning a
variable on the LHS of an assignment, recv, assign_op, or on
either side of a swap.
Some code cleanup as well.
Typeck and trans used to, by historical coincidence, use the item_obj
node id, which was used to identify the obj type by the rest of the
system, for the constructor function. This is now identified by the
ctor id stored in the tag throughout.
If you use a function expecting an alias argument in a context that
expects a function expecting a value argument, or vice versa, the
previous error message complained that the number of arguments was
wrong. Fixed the error message to be accurate.
typestate now drops constraints correctly in the post-state of
a move expression or a declaration whose op is a move. It doesn't
yet drop constraints mentioning variables that get updated.
To do this, I had to change typestate to use trit-vectors instead
of bit-vectors, because for every constraint, there are three
possible values: known-to-be-false (e.g. after x <- y, init(y) is
known-to-be-false), known-to-be-true, and unknown. Before, we
conflated known-to-be-false with unknown. But move requires them
to be treated differently. Consider:
(program a)
(a1) x = 1;
(a2) y <- x;
(a3) log x;
(program b)
(b1) x = 1;
(b2) y <- z;
(b3) log x;
With only two values, the postcondition of statement a2 for
constraint init(x) is the same as that of b2: 0. But in (a2)'s
postcondition, init(x) *must* be false, but in (b2)'s condition,
it's just whatever it was in the postcondition of the preceding statement.
This code was causing a bounds check failure:
fn hd[U](&vec[U] v) -> U {
fn hd1(&vec[U] w) -> U {
ret w.(0);
}
ret hd1(v);
}
because in hd1, U was being treated as if it referred to a type
parameter of hd1, rather than referring to the lexically enclosing binding
for U that's part of hd.
I'm actually not sure whether this is a legit program or not. But I wanted
to get rid of the bounds check error, so I assumed that program shouldn't
compile and made it a proper error message.
