At some point, pass definitions were heavily macro-ized. Pass
descriptive names were added in two places. This is not only redundant
but a source of confusion. You could waste a lot of time grepping for
the wrong string. I removed all the getName() overrides which, at
around 90 passes, was a fairly significant amount of code bloat.
Any pass that we want to be able to invoke by name from a tool
(sil-opt) or pipeline plan *should* have unique type name, enum value,
commend-line string, and name string. I removed a comment about the
various inliner passes that contradicted that.
Side note: We should be consistent with the policy that a pass is
identified by its type. We have a couple passes, LICM and CSE, which
currently violate that convention.
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
(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.
