- replaces "move-only" terminology with "noncopyable"
- replaces compiler jargon like "guaranteed parameters"
and "lvalue" with corresponding language-level notions
- simplifies diagnostics about closures.
and probably more.
rdar://109281444
By using the keyword instead of the function, we actually get a much simpler
implementation since we avoid all of the machinery of SILGenApply. Given that we
are going down that path, I am removing the old builtin implementation since it
is dead code.
The reason why I am removing this now is that in a subsequent commit, I want to
move all of the ownership checking passes to run /before/ mandatory inlining. I
originally placed the passes after mandatory inlining since the function version
of the move keyword was transparent and needing to be inlined before we could
process it. Since we use the keyword now, that is no longer an issue.
I am purposely doing this in SILGen rather than at the type system level to
avoid having to have to add a bunch of boilerplate to the type system. Instead
of doing that, I am in SILGen checking for the isNoImplicitCopy bit on the
ParamDecl when we emit arguments. At that point, I set on the specific
SILArgument being emitted the bit that it is no implicit copy. In terms of
printing at the SIL level, I just printed it in front of the function argument
type like @owned, e.x.:
func myFunc(_ x: @_noImplicitCopy T) -> T {
...
}
becomes:
bb0(%0 : @noImplicitCopy @owned $T):
Some notes:
* Just to be explicit, I am making it so that no implicit copy parameters by
default are always passed at +1. The reason why I think this makes sense is
that this is the natural way of working with a move only value.
* As always, one can not write no implicit copy the attribute without passing
the flag -enable-experimental-move-only so this is NFC.
rdar://83957088
Some notes:
1. This is not actually wired up to any part of codegen. Instead, this PR just
has the code necessary to parse the attribute and to ensure that we use it only
on local lets. The rest will come in subsequent commits.
2. I am allowing for the attribute to be attached to generic things in Sema
since we do not have enough information in the TypeChecker to distinguish in
between structs with a type parameter but that have all non-generic stored vars
from one with generic stored vars. We can only support the later with opaque
values but the former we can support without opaque values (and is one of the
use cases we are interested in).
rdar://83957088
