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.
Before this commit all code relating to handling arguments in SILBasicBlock had
somewhere in the name BB. This is redundant given that the class's name is
already SILBasicBlock. This commit drops those names.
Some examples:
getBBArg() => getArgument()
BBArgList => ArgumentList
bbarg_begin() => args_begin()
As there are no instructions left which produce multiple result values, this is a NFC regarding the generated SIL and generated code.
Although this commit is large, most changes are straightforward adoptions to the changes in the ValueBase and SILValue classes.
Revert "Make AADumper and MemoryBehaviorDumper function passes. They do not need to be module passes."
This reverts commit a503269e2d.
This reverts commit 375f525c51.
Turns out we /do/ want these two passes to be module passes so that their output
is independent of how the pass manager schedules function passes.
I tried to just fix the issue in MemBehaviorDumper/AADumper without reverting,
but somehow this caused their tests to start failing?!
I will try separating them again in a subsequent commit.
(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.
