Builtin.once() expects thin functions, so we don't need to try to walk
through thin_to_thick_function here.
I suspect this might have been a vestige of having used apply for these
at one point.
We were giving special handling to ApplyInst when we were attempting to use
getMemoryBehavior(). This commit changes the special handling to work on all
full apply sites instead of just AI. Additionally, we look through partial
applies and thin to thick functions.
I also added a dumper called BasicInstructionPropertyDumper that just dumps the
results of SILInstruction::get{Memory,Releasing}Behavior() for all instructions
in order to verify this behavior.
Similarly to how we've always handled parameter types, we
now recursively expand tuples in result types and separately
determine a result convention for each result.
The most important code-generation change here is that
indirect results are now returned separately from each
other and from any direct results. It is generally far
better, when receiving an indirect result, to receive it
as an independent result; the caller is much more likely
to be able to directly receive the result in the address
they want to initialize, rather than having to receive it
in temporary memory and then copy parts of it into the
target.
The most important conceptual change here that clients and
producers of SIL must be aware of is the new distinction
between a SILFunctionType's *parameters* and its *argument
list*. The former is just the formal parameters, derived
purely from the parameter types of the original function;
indirect results are no longer in this list. The latter
includes the indirect result arguments; as always, all
the indirect results strictly precede the parameters.
Apply instructions and entry block arguments follow the
argument list, not the parameter list.
A relatively minor change is that there can now be multiple
direct results, each with its own result convention.
This is a minor change because I've chosen to leave
return instructions as taking a single operand and
apply instructions as producing a single result; when
the type describes multiple results, they are implicitly
bound up in a tuple. It might make sense to split these
up and allow e.g. return instructions to take a list
of operands; however, it's not clear what to do on the
caller side, and this would be a major change that can
be separated out from this already over-large patch.
Unsurprisingly, the most invasive changes here are in
SILGen; this requires substantial reworking of both call
emission and reabstraction. It also proved important
to switch several SILGen operations over to work with
RValue instead of ManagedValue, since otherwise they
would be forced to spuriously "implode" buffers.
As there are no instructions left which produce multiple result values, this is a NFC regarding the generated SIL and generated code.
Although this commit is large, most changes are straightforward adoptions to the changes in the ValueBase and SILValue classes.
This is something that we have wanted for a long time and will enable us to
remove some hacks from the compiler (i.e. how we determine in the ARC optimizer
that we have "fatalError" like function) and also express new things like
"noarc".
This commit changes the Swift mangler from a utility that writes tokens into a
stream into a name-builder that has two phases: "building a name", and "ready".
This clear separation is needed for the implementation of the compression layer.
Users of the mangler can continue to build the name using the mangleXXX methods,
but to access the results the users of the mangler need to call the finalize()
method. This method can write the result into a stream, like before, or return
an std::string.
to make sure we are not accessing the buffer before the output is ready. The Mangler is going to be buffered (for compression), and accessing the underlying buffer is a bug.
(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.
