This was in the first high level ARC instruction proposal, but I have not needed
it until now. The use case for this is to ahandle strong_retain_unowned (which
takes in an unowned value, asserts it is still alive, performs a strong_retain,
and returns the @owned value). This @owned value needs a destroy_value.
rdar://29671437
This was already done for getSuccessorBlocks() to distinguish getting successor
blocks from getting the full list of SILSuccessors via getSuccessors(). This
commit just makes all of the successor/predecessor code follow that naming
convention.
Some examples:
getSingleSuccessor() => getSingleSuccessorBlock().
isSuccessor() => isSuccessorBlock().
getPreds() => getPredecessorBlocks().
Really, IMO, we should consider renaming SILSuccessor to a more verbose name so
that it is clear that it is more of an internal detail of SILBasicBlock's
implementation rather than something that one should consider as apart of one's
mental model of the IR when one really wants to be thinking about predecessor
and successor blocks. But that is not what this commit is trying to change, it
is just trying to eliminate a bit of technical debt by making the naming
conventions here consistent.
This is a NFC change, since verification still will be behind the flag. But this
will allow me to move copy_value, destroy_value in front of the
EnableSILOwnership flag and verify via SILGen that we are always using those
instructions.
rdar://28851920
Over the past day or so I have been thinking about how we are going to need to
manage verification of semantic ARC semantics in the pass pipeline. Specifically
the Eliminator pass really needs to be a function pass to ensure that we can
transparently put it at any stage of the optimization pipeline. This means that
just having a flag on the SILVerifier that states whether or not ownership is
enabled is not sufficient for our purposes. Instead, while staging in the SIL
ownership model, we need a bit on all SILFunctions to state whether the function
has been run through the ownership model eliminator so that the verifier can
ensure that we are in a world with "SIL ownership" or in a world without "SIL
ownership", never in a world with only some "SIL ownership" instructions. We
embed this distinction in SIL by creating the concept of a function with
"qualified ownership" and a function with "unqualified ownership".
Define a function with "qualified ownership" as a function that contains no
instructions with "unqualified ownership" (i.e. unqualified load) and a function
with "unqualified ownership" as a function containing such no "ownership
qualified" instructions (i.e. load [copy]) and at least 1 unqualified ownership
instruction.
This commit embeds this distinction into SILFunction in a manner that is
transparently ignored when compiling with SIL ownership disabled. This is done
by representing qualified or unqualified ownership via an optional Boolean on
SILFunction. If the Boolean is None, then SILOwnership is not enabled and the
verifier/passes can work as appropriate. If the Boolean is not None, then it
states whether or not the function has been run through the Ownership Model
Eliminator and thus what invariants the verifier should enforce.
How does this concept flow through the compilation pipeline for functions in a
given module? When SIL Ownership is enabled, all SILFunctions that are produced
in a given module start with "qualified ownership" allowing them to contain SIL
ownership instructions. After the Ownership Model eliminator has run, the
Ownership Model sets the "unqualified" ownership flag on the SILFunction stating
that no more ownership qualified instructions are allowed to be seen in the
given function.
But what about functions that are parsed or are deserialized from another
module? Luckily, given the manner in which we have categories our functions, we
can categorize functions directly without needing to add anything to the parser
or to the deserializer. This is done by enforcing that it is illegal to have a
function with qualified ownership and unqualified ownership instructions and
asserting that functions without either are considered qualified.
rdar://28685236
SILValue.h/.cpp just defines the SIL base classes. Referring to specific instructions is a (small) kind of layering violation.
Also I want to keep SILValue small so that it is really just a type alias of ValueBase*.
NFC.
