For a long time, we have:
1. Created methods on SILArgument that only work on either function arguments or
block arguments.
2. Created code paths in the compiler that only allow for "function"
SILArguments or "block" SILArguments.
This commit refactors SILArgument into two subclasses, SILPHIArgument and
SILFunctionArgument, separates the function and block APIs onto the subclasses
(leaving the common APIs on SILArgument). It also goes through and changes all
places in the compiler that conditionalize on one of the forms of SILArgument to
just use the relevant subclass. This is made easier by the relevant APIs not
being on SILArgument anymore. If you take a quick look through you will see that
the API now expresses a lot more of its intention.
The reason why I am performing this refactoring now is that SILFunctionArguments
have a ValueOwnershipKind defined by the given function's signature. On the
other hand, SILBlockArguments have a stored ValueOwnershipKind. Rather than
store ValueOwnershipKind in both instances and in the function case have a dead
variable, I decided to just bite the bullet and fix this.
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.
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()
iterator/pointer comparison issue that yields undefined behavior. This updates
Swift for the landing of this change in swift-llvm/stable.
I am going to cherry-pick the given change into swift-llvm/stable since there is no
reason not to do this now and it will prevent more of these conversions from
creeping into the code base.
We really want to avoid as much undefined behavior as we possibly can.
This is done by splitting the transformation into an analysis phase and a transformation phase (which does not use the dominator tree anymore).
The domintator tree is recalucated once after the whole function is processed.
This change eventually solves the compile time problem of rdar://problem/24410167.
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.
This just runs a transform range on getSuccessor()'s ArrayRef<SILSuccessor> so
one does not need to always call Successor.getBB() when iterating over successor
blocks. Instead the transform range does that call for you.
I also updated some loops to use this new SILBasicBlock method to make sure that
the code is tested out by tests that are already in tree. All these places
should be functionally the same albeit a bit cleaner.
(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.
