The reason why I am introducing special instructions is so I can maintain the
qualified ownership API wedge in between qualified SIL and the rest of the ARC
instructions that are pervasively used in the compiler.
These instructions in the future /could/ be extended to just take @sil_unmanaged
operands directly, but I want to maintain flexibility to take regular
non-trivial operands in the short term.
rdar://29791263
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
Keep in mind that these are approximations that will not impact correctness
since in all cases I ensured that the SIL will be the same after the
OwnershipModelEliminator has run. The cases that I was unsure of I commented
with SEMANTIC ARC TODO. Once we have the verifier any confusion that may have
occurred here will be dealt with.
rdar://28685236
Today, loads and stores are treated as having @unowned(unsafe) ownership
semantics. This leaves the user to specify ownership changes on the loaded or
stored value independently of the load/store by inserting ARC operations. With
the change to Semantic SIL, this will no longer be true. Instead loads, stores
have ownership semantics that one must reason about such as copy, take, and
trivial.
This change moves us closer to that world by eliminating the default
OwnershipQualification argument from create{Load,Store}. This means that the
compiler developer cannot ignore reasoning about the ownership semantics of the
memory operation that they are creating.
Operationally, this is a NFC change since I have just gone through the compiler
and updated all places where we create loads, stores to pass in the former
default argument ({Load,Store}OwnershipQualifier::Unqualified), to
SILBuilder::create{Load,Store}(...). For now, one can just do that in situations
where one needs to create loads/stores, but over time, I am going to tighten the
semantics up via the verifier.
rdar://28685236
Since we set the unqualified flag before we eliminate any instructions, this
will do the *right* thing and emit the most optimal lowered representation
whether it is a strong_* or *_value instruction.
This ensures that passes that expect values to have the most lowered
representation of instruction to be able to pattern match correctly.
This can up when alloc-box-to-stack was pattern matching on strong_retain on
Boxes, but I was being lazy and emitted retain_value.
rdar://28851920
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
