Although I don't plan to bring over new assertions wholesale
into the current qualification branch, it's entirely possible
that various minor changes in main will use the new assertions;
having this basic support in the release branch will simplify that.
(This is why I'm adding the includes as a separate pass from
rewriting the individual assertions)
This removes the ambiguity when casting from a SingleValueInstruction to SILNode, which makes the code simpler. E.g. the "isRepresentativeSILNode" logic is not needed anymore.
Also, it reduces the size of the most used instruction class - SingleValueInstruction - by one pointer.
Conceptually, SILInstruction is still a SILNode. But implementation-wise SILNode is not a base class of SILInstruction anymore.
Only the two sub-classes of SILInstruction - SingleValueInstruction and NonSingleValueInstruction - inherit from SILNode. SingleValueInstruction's SILNode is embedded into a ValueBase and its relative offset in the class is the same as in NonSingleValueInstruction (see SILNodeOffsetChecker).
This makes it possible to cast from a SILInstruction to a SILNode without knowing which SILInstruction sub-class it is.
Casting to SILNode cannot be done implicitly, but only with an LLVM `cast` or with SILInstruction::asSILNode(). But this is a rare case anyway.
This removes the ambiguity when casting from a SingleValueInstruction to SILNode, which makes the code simpler. E.g. the "isRepresentativeSILNode" logic is not needed anymore.
Also, it reduces the size of the most used instruction class - SingleValueInstruction - by one pointer.
Conceptually, SILInstruction is still a SILNode. But implementation-wise SILNode is not a base class of SILInstruction anymore.
Only the two sub-classes of SILInstruction - SingleValueInstruction and NonSingleValueInstruction - inherit from SILNode. SingleValueInstruction's SILNode is embedded into a ValueBase and its relative offset in the class is the same as in NonSingleValueInstruction (see SILNodeOffsetChecker).
This makes it possible to cast from a SILInstruction to a SILNode without knowing which SILInstruction sub-class it is.
Casting to SILNode cannot be done implicitly, but only with an LLVM `cast` or with SILInstruction::asSILNode(). But this is a rare case anyway.
introduce a common superclass, SILNode.
This is in preparation for allowing instructions to have multiple
results. It is also a somewhat more elegant representation for
instructions that have zero results. Instructions that are known
to have exactly one result inherit from a class, SingleValueInstruction,
that subclasses both ValueBase and SILInstruction. Some care must be
taken when working with SILNode pointers and testing for equality;
please see the comment on SILNode for more information.
A number of SIL passes needed to be updated in order to handle this
new distinction between SIL values and SIL instructions.
Note that the SIL parser is now stricter about not trying to assign
a result value from an instruction (like 'return' or 'strong_retain')
that does not produce any.
(libraries now)
It has been generally agreed that we need to do this reorg, and now
seems like the perfect time. Some major pass reorganization is in the
works.
This does not have to be the final word on the matter. The consensus
among those working on the code is that it's much better than what we
had and a better starting point for future bike shedding.
Note that the previous organization was designed to allow separate
analysis and optimization libraries. It turns out this is an
artificial distinction and not an important goal.
