Now that the generic signature is computable on demand, this predicate is doubly useless. All of the callers intended to ask "hasInterfaceType" anyways.
Push the relevant work this was doing down into the callers. Most of them didn't want to validate the entire extension and force its generic parameters, they just wanted to validate the nominal type.
We must eagerly validate the generic signature of extensions, though. This avoids a class of cycles where non-generic members of an extension with a generic signaure will call through to getGenericSignatureOfContext and force the generic signature anyways. When this calls through to protocol witness matching, the signature can be recursively computed.
The general class of cycle here is when validation asks for the generic signature which triggers requirement checking which forces us to ask for the generic signature of the extension again. We should look into a more principled solution.
See rdar://55263708
This will ensure that if an expert user is using this feature and makes a
mistake as a result of tweaking their code, they get an error. This will ensure
they do not ship and look into why this is happening.
This is not intended to be used by anyone except for expert stdlib users.
If there are any actual captures, a CaptureInfoStorage will be
allocated in the ASTContext, matching the previous behavior of
allocating the array of captures there.
No functionality change. I /tried/ to change the functionality to
assert everywhere capture info was used but hadn't explicitly been
computed, but it turns out we do that /all over the place/ for any
declaration that's been synthesized, imported, or deserialized. I
left in some groundwork for someone to make this more explicit (or
requestify it) in the future.
TLDR: This patch introduces a new kind of builtin, "a polymorphic builtin". One
calls it like any other builtin, e.x.:
```
Builtin.generic_add(x, y)
```
but it has a contract: it must be specialized to a concrete builtin by the time
we hit Lowered SIL. In this commit, I add support for the following generic
operations:
Type | Op
------------------------
FloatOrVector |FAdd
FloatOrVector |FDiv
FloatOrVector |FMul
FloatOrVector |FRem
FloatOrVector |FSub
IntegerOrVector|AShr
IntegerOrVector|Add
IntegerOrVector|And
IntegerOrVector|ExactSDiv
IntegerOrVector|ExactUDiv
IntegerOrVector|LShr
IntegerOrVector|Mul
IntegerOrVector|Or
IntegerOrVector|SDiv
IntegerOrVector|SRem
IntegerOrVector|Shl
IntegerOrVector|Sub
IntegerOrVector|UDiv
IntegerOrVector|Xor
Integer |URem
NOTE: I only implemented support for the builtins in SIL and in SILGen. I am
going to implement the optimizer parts of this in a separate series of commits.
DISCUSSION
----------
Today there are polymorphic like instructions in LLVM-IR. Yet, at the
swift and SIL level we represent these operations instead as Builtins whose
names are resolved by splatting the builtin into the name. For example, adding
two things in LLVM:
```
%2 = add i64 %0, %1
%2 = add <2 x i64> %0, %1
%2 = add <4 x i64> %0, %1
%2 = add <8 x i64> %0, %1
```
Each of the add operations are done by the same polymorphic instruction. In
constrast, we splat out these Builtins in swift today, i.e.:
```
let x, y: Builtin.Int32
Builtin.add_Int32(x, y)
let x, y: Builtin.Vec4xInt32
Builtin.add_Vec4xInt32(x, y)
...
```
In SIL, we translate these verbatim and then IRGen just lowers them to the
appropriate polymorphic instruction. Beyond being verbose, these prevent these
Builtins (which need static types) from being used in polymorphic contexts where
we can guarantee that eventually a static type will be provided.
In contrast, the polymorphic builtins introduced in this commit can be passed
any type, with the proviso that the expert user using this feature can guarantee
that before we reach Lowered SIL, the generic_add has been eliminated. This is
enforced by IRGen asserting if passed such a builtin and by the SILVerifier
checking that the underlying builtin is never called once the module is in
Lowered SIL.
In forthcoming commits, I am going to add two optimizations that give the stdlib
tool writer the tools needed to use this builtin:
1. I am going to add an optimization to constant propagation that changes a
"generic_*" op to the type of its argument if the argument is a type that is
valid for the builtin (i.e. integer or vector).
2. I am going to teach the SILCloner how to specialize these as it inlines. This
ensures that when we transparent inline, we specialize the builtin automatically
and can then form SSA at -Onone using predictable memory access operations.
The main implication around these polymorphic builtins are that if an author is
not able to specialize the builtin, they need to ensure that after constant
propagation, the generic builtin has been DCEed. The general rules are that the
-Onone optimizer will constant fold branches with constant integer operands. So
if one can use a bool of some sort to trigger the operation, one can be
guaranteed that the code will not codegen. I am considering putting in some sort
of diagnostic to ensure that the stdlib writer has a good experience (e.x. get
an error instead of crashing the compiler).
