We cannot use spare bits or other overlapping storage layout tricks with fundamentally
address-only enums, and we can take advantage of this to do borrowing switches or other
in-place projections without copying the value. However, for resilient enums, the
implementation may use spare bit packing, but the type must be handled address-only
outside of its defining module, and we didn't have a way to express that with
borrowing switch. Optimization passes have also been running into problems with the
complexity that we were using `unchecked_take_enum_data_addr` sometimes as a pure
operation. This patch splits the instruction into three:
- `unchecked_inplace_enum_data_addr` represents a nondestructive in-place enum
projection. It is only allowed for enums whose projection operation is
nondestructive.
- `unchecked_take_enum_data_addr` represents a destructive enum projection,
invalidating the enum and leaving the payload to be further consumed.
This matches the current instruction's semantics.
- `unchecked_borrow_enum_data_addr` represents a borrowing enum projection.
The instruction takes a second operand for "scratch" space, which the
enum representation may be copied into in order to avoid invalidating the
enum value, so the result is dependent on the lifetime of both the
original enum and the scratch buffer. This allows for borrowing switches
over resilient enums.
`unchecked_borrow_enum_data_addr` is implemented by taking advantage of the
"address-only enums can't do spare bit optimization" property at runtime.
We inspect the operand type's bitwise-borrowability from its metadata. If
the type is bitwise-borrowable, then we are allowed to bitwise-copy the
enum to the scratch space and apply the projection to the scratch space,
preserving the original value. If the type is not bitwise-borrowable, then
we cannot use spare bit optimization in its layout, so we apply the
projection in-place.
Fixes rdar://174952822.
CONTEXT: This code works by building up a stack of SIL values of values that
need to be transformed into a StringRef as part of generating our name path and
then as a second phase performs the conversion of those values to StringRef as
we pop from the stack.
This is the first in a string of commits that are going to refactor
VariableNameUtils so that the stack will only contain StringRef instead of SIL
entities. This will be accomplished by moving the SIL value -> StringRef code
from the combining part of the algorithm (where we drain the stack) to the
construction of the stack.
The reason why I am doing this is two fold:
1. By just storing StringRef into the stack I am simplifying the code. Today as
mentioned above in the context, we gather up the SILValue we want to process and
then just convert them to StringRef. This means that any time one has to add a
new instruction, one has to update two different pieces of code. By trafficking
in StringRef instead, one only has to update one piece of code.
2. I want to add some simple code that allows for us to get names from closures
which would require me to recurse. I am nervous about putting
values/instructions from different functions in the same data structure. Today
it is safe, but it is bad practice. Instead, by just using StringRef in the
stack, I can avoid this problem.
This was causing us to emit old style diagnostics in certain cases.
Just doing a walk through of the diagnostics and fixing issues while I
am here sprucing up sending diagnostics.
rdar://130915737
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)
I have been using these in TransferNonSendable and they are useful in terms of
reducing the amount of code that one has to type to use this API. I am going to
need to use it in SILIsolationInfo, so it makes sense to move it into
SILOptimizer/Utils.
NFCI.
The reason why we do this is that we want to treat this as a separate value from
their operand since they are the result of defining a new value.
This has a few nice side-effects, one of which is that if a let results in just
a begin_borrow [var_decl], we emit names for it.
I also did a little work around helping variable name utils to lookup names from
applies that are fed into a {move_value,begin_borrow} [var_decl] which then has
the debug_value we are searching for.
This eliminates a bunch of cases where we couldn't infer the name of a variable
and used the type based diagnostic.
It also eliminates an 'unknown' case for move checking.
I am going to reuse this for TransferNonSendable. In the process I made a few
changes to make it more amenable to both use cases and used the current set of
tests that we have for noncopyable types to validate that I didn't break
anything.
Joe Groff
Kavon Farvardin
Meghana Gupta
Anthony Latsis
Andrew Trick
Michael Gottesman
Michael Gottesman
Nate Chandler
Tim Kientzle