Note this isn't implementing checking through imports. The parse node
there is harder to access through the context, so would require
examining the entity in order to get the import declaration, to get at
the ImportIR. We also don't have a parse tree attached in that case, and
would need to add one to SemIR::File. But I believe we do want to add
that, so it's explicitly a TODO.
Note GetTokenText re-lexes literal values, so there's a bit of potential
overhead there. Not sure if we want a more efficient manner for
comparing in cases like this.
This is for consistency with #4120. Similar to that, we can use
overloads on the typed NodeId rather than individually named handlers.
There isn't the same caller benefit here though, since the calls from
check.cpp are already boilerplate.
Most of these are places where we failed to include a header file and
simply never got an error about this. The fix is to include the header
file.
Most other cases are functions that should have been marked `static` but
were not. Finding all of these was a main motivation for me enabling the
warning despite how much work it is.
One complicating factor was that we weren't including the `handle.h` for
all the state-based handler functions. While this isn't a tiny amount of
code, it is just declarations and doesn't add any extra dependencies. It
also lets us have the checking for which functions need to be `static`
and which don't. For the `parse` library I had to add the `handle.h`
header as well, I tried to match the design of it in `check`.
I have also had to work around a bug in the warning, but given the value
it seems to be providing, that seems reasonable. I've filed the bug
upstream: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/94138
I also had to use some hacks to work around limitations of Bazel rules
that wrap `cc_library` rules and don't expose `copts`. I filed a bug for
`cc_proto_library` specifically:
~https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/22610~https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/4446
This was previously discussed at
https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1209975051588210729.
I'm initiating this mainly because we typically use "id" suffixes to
indicate an `IdBase` being passed around and the non-id suffix of
`parse_node` suggests at it carrying more data than it actually does.
There used to be more reason for avoiding `node_id` because
`SemIR::InstId` used to be named `NodeId`, but that's no longer
necessary. As a consequence, I'd like to rename `parse_node` to more
precisely reflect its type.
In full, this is doing:
```
parse_node_kind -> node_kind
parse_node -> node_id
ParseNodeCategory -> NodeCategory
ParseNodeKind -> NodeKind
ParseNode -> NodeId
```
This is primarily in check and sem_ir, but with some `parse_node_kind`
references in parse too.
Pluralization is consistent with name forms on both sides, so that
wasn't part of my replacements.
Previously, we created scopes for implicit parameter lists and tuple
patterns, but that meant that bindings went out of scope too soon. We
now keep them in scope until the end of the enclosing declaration. This
is accomplished by pushing a scope for parameters when we handle a name
that might have them, and then popping the scope again if it turns out
that there were no parameters.
For a case such as:
```carbon
fn A(T:! type).B(U:! type).F(x: T, y: U) {
var z: T;
}
```
... we now have the following scopes in the stack:
- A parameter scope containing `T`.
- A class scope for `A(T:! type)`.
- A parameter scope containing `U`.
- A class scope for `A(T:! type).B(U:! type)`.
- A parameter scope containing `x: T` and `y: U`.
- A function body scope containing `z: T`.
The innermost scope when check processes a declaration of a function,
class, or similar is now often a parameter scope rather than the
enclosing scope in which the class or function is declared, so the
target scope is now passed explicitly into the modifier checking code
that wants to inspect that enclosing scope.
Goal is to increase type safety, though more work needs to be done (see
added TODOs).
Note that, after this change, check handlers corresponding to deleted
parse node kinds will no longer compile.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Jon Ross-Perkins
Chandler Carruth
Richard Smith
josh11b
Geoff RomerandRichard Smith