This attribute was introduced in
7eca38ce76d5d1915f4ab7e665964062c0b37697 (llvm-project).
Match it using a wildcard regex, since it is not relevant to these
tests.
This is intended to reduce future conflicts with rebranch.
Upgrade the old mangling from a list of argument types to a
list of requiremnets. For now, only same-type requirements
may actually be mangled since those are all that are available
to the surface language.
Reconstruction of existential types now consists of demangling (a list of)
base protocol(s), decoding the constraints, and converting the same-type
constraints back into a list of arguments.
rdar://96088707
I wrote out this whole analysis of why different existential types
might have the same logical content, and then I turned around and
immediately uniqued existential shapes purely by logical content
rather than the (generalized) formal type. Oh well. At least it's
not too late to make ABI changes like this.
We now store a reference to a mangling of the generalized formal
type directly in the shape. This type alone is sufficient to unique
the shape:
- By the nature of the generalization algorithm, every type parameter
in the generalization signature should be mentioned in the
generalized formal type in a deterministic order.
- By the nature of the generalization algorithm, every other
requirement in the generalization signature should be implied
by the positions in which generalization type parameters appear
(e.g. because the formal type is C<T> & P, where C constrains
its type parameter for well-formedness).
- The requirement signature and type expression are extracted from
the existential type.
As a result, we no longer rely on computing a unique hash at
compile time.
Storing this separately from the requirement signature potentially
allows runtimes with general shape support to work with future
extensions to existential types even if they cannot demangle the
generalized formal type.
Storing the generalized formal type also allows us to easily and
reliably extract the formal type of the existential. Otherwise,
it's quite a heroic endeavor to match requirements back up with
primary associated types. Doing so would also only allows us to
extract *some* matching formal type, not necessarily the *right*
formal type. So there's some good synergy here.
