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)
rdar://119329771
This layout allows adding pre-specializations for trivial types that have a different size, but the same stride. This is especially useful for collections, where the stride is the important factor.
We already need to track the inverses separate from the members in a
ProtocolCompositionType, since inverses aren't real types. Thus, the
only purpose being served by InverseType is to be eliminated by
RequirementLowering when it appears in a conformance requirement.
Instead, we introduce separate type InverseRequirement just to keep
track of which inverses we encounter to facilitate cancelling-out
defaults and ensuring that the inverses are respected after running
the RequirementMachine.
* [SILOptimizer] Add prespecialization for arbitray reference types
* Fix benchmark Package.swift
* Move SimpleArray to utils
* Fix multiple indirect result case
* Remove leftover code from previous attempt
* Fix test after rebase
* Move code to compute type replacements to SpecializedFunction
* Fix ownership when OSSA is enabled
* Fixes after rebase
* Changes after rebasing
* Add feature flag for layout pre-specialization
* Fix pre_specialize-macos.swift
* Add compiler flag to benchmark build
* Fix benchmark SwiftPM flags
Many, many, many types in the Swift compiler are intended to only be allocated in the ASTContext. We have previously implemented this by writing several `operator new` and `operator delete` implementations into these types. Factor those out into a new base class instead.
This silences the instances of the warning from Visual Studio about not all
codepaths returning a value. This makes the output more readable and less
likely to lose useful warnings. NFC.
This PR addresses TODOs from #8241.
- It supports merging for layout constraints, e.g., if both a _Trivial constraint and a _Trivial(64) constraint appear on a type parameter, we keep only _Trivial(64) as a more specific layout constraint. We do a similar thing for ref-counted/native-ref-counted. The overall idea is to keep the more specific of two compatible layout constraints.
- The presence of a superclass constraint implies a layout constraint, e.g., a superclass constraint implies _Class or _NativeClass
- Add support for _Class and _NativeClass layout constraints, which are supposed to represent T: Superclass and P: class constraints in the future.
- Use the re-factoring to also reduce the number of dynamic allocations when creating layout constraints. Simple non-parametrized layout constraints are now represented as statically allocated singletons (static members of LayoutConstraintInfo).
This biggest change is:
- LayoutConstraintInfo is now a FoldingSetNode, which allows for proper canonicalization of LayoutConstraints. This is important for the correctness of type comparisons if types contain layout constraints.
No functionality changes from the client's point of view.
Tim Kientzle
Dario Rexin
Kavon Farvardin
Becca Royal-Gordon
Slava Pestov
Saleem Abdulrasool
Roman Levenstein
practicalswift
Hugh Bellamy