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)
A temporary fix to make it possible to debug expressions
with partially resolved variadic generic types. The issue stems
from the fact that `BoundGenericType` is allowed to have pack
parameters directly represented by type variables, as soon as
that is no longer the case this check should be removed.
Type deletes operator== so this no longer compiles on the next branch.
No idea why it worked before. We could use isEqual() instead but in fact
none of the callers care about uniqueness so let's do the simple thing
that is guaranteed to work.
This basically undoes 3da6fe9c0d, which in hindsight was wrong.
There were no other usages of TypeArrayView anywhere else except for
GenericSignature::getGenericParams(), and it was almost never what
you want, so callers had to convert back and forth to an ArrayRef.
Remove it.
This is phase-1 of switching from llvm::Optional to std::optional in the
next rebranch. llvm::Optional was removed from upstream LLVM, so we need
to migrate off rather soon. On Darwin, std::optional, and llvm::Optional
have the same layout, so we don't need to be as concerned about ABI
beyond the name mangling. `llvm::Optional` is only returned from one
function in
```
getStandardTypeSubst(StringRef TypeName,
bool allowConcurrencyManglings);
```
It's the return value, so it should not impact the mangling of the
function, and the layout is the same as `std::optional`, so it should be
mostly okay. This function doesn't appear to have users, and the ABI was
already broken 2 years ago for concurrency and no one seemed to notice
so this should be "okay".
I'm doing the migration incrementally so that folks working on main can
cherry-pick back to the release/5.9 branch. Once 5.9 is done and locked
away, then we can go through and finish the replacement. Since `None`
and `Optional` show up in contexts where they are not `llvm::None` and
`llvm::Optional`, I'm preparing the work now by going through and
removing the namespace unwrapping and making the `llvm` namespace
explicit. This should make it fairly mechanical to go through and
replace llvm::Optional with std::optional, and llvm::None with
std::nullopt. It's also a change that can be brought onto the
release/5.9 with minimal impact. This should be an NFC change.
Examine pack expansion pattern to determine whether expression
result could be discarded without a warning (applies to tuples
with a single unlabeled pack expansion element as well).
Resolves: rdar://108064941
Substitution of a pack expansion type may now produce a pack type.
We immediately expand that pack when transforming a tuple, a function
parameter, or a pack.
I had to duplicate the component-wise transformation logic in the
simplifyType transform, which I'm not pleased about, but a little
code duplication seemed a lot better than trying to unify the code
in two very different places.
I think we're very close to being able to assert that pack expansion
shapes are either pack archetypes or pack parameters; unfortunately,
the pack matchers intentionally produce expansions of packs, and I
didn't want to add that to an already-large patch.
and lowered pack types.
The "approximate" thing is kindof a representational/testing wart.
Really, all that we care about is that we have a formal pack type
with the right shape. (We don't *really* need a formal pack type ---
we could use anything that can represent the shape --- but we seem
to be standardizing on `PackType` for that.) We could just use the
reduced shape for that, but for some reason I've been resisting that.
Not sure I have a compelling reason, though, and if we decide to
use reduced shapes, we can eliminate the approximate formal packs
stuff.
Inducing packs from tuple slices is a more permanently-useful thing.
This required quite a bit of infrastructure for emitting this kind of
tuple expression, although I'm not going to claim they really work yet;
in particular, I know the RValue constructor is going to try to explode
them, which it really shouldn't.
It also doesn't include the caller side of returns, for which I'll need
to teach ResultPlan to do the new abstraction-pattern walk. But that's
next.
- SILPackType carries whether the elements are stored directly
in the pack, which we're not currently using in the lowering,
but it's probably something we'll want in the final ABI.
Having this also makes it clear that we're doing the right
thing with substitution and element lowering. I also toyed
with making this a scalar type, which made it necessary in
various places, although eventually I pulled back to the
design where we always use packs as addresses.
- Pack boundaries are a core ABI concept, so the lowering has
to wrap parameter pack expansions up as packs. There are huge
unimplemented holes here where the abstraction pattern will
need to tell us how many elements to gather into the pack,
but a naive approach is good enough to get things off the
ground.
- Pack conventions are related to the existing parameter and
result conventions, but they're different on enough grounds
that they deserve to be separated.
