Start treating function calls as initializing expressions instead of as
value expressions.
This required adding support for expression categories. Value bindings
and temporary materialization conversions are created where necessary to
transition between expression categories. For a function call with a
return slot, we speculatively create a materialized temporary before the
call and either commit to it or replace it with something else later,
once we see how the function call expression is actually used.
This change follows the direction suggested in #3133 for initializing
expressions: depending on the return type of a function, the return
value will either be initialized in-place or returned directly. This is
visible in the semantics IR, which is a little unfortunate but is
probably necessary as this is part of the semantics of the program.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Previously, IR generated for the computation of the return type ended up
in the package's node block. Put it with the IR for the parameters for
consistency and cleanliness.
This removes BindName, putting name information directly on VarStorage.
As a side-effect of updating semantics_ir_test for this change, I also
noted that function bodies were being generated as invalid YAML so am
fixing that (just `{}` to `[]` bracketing, otherwise the test wouldn't
work anymore).
Because names are now available, I've updated lowering to use them for
vars.
In the SemIR formatter, the name is now repeated because it's a
parameter to VarStorage. I believe this is just default behavior, and
we'd have to special-case VarStorage to remove it because it's automatic
argument printing in action. On the balance, it felt like letting it
print was reasonable.
I've noted in places that the name on VarStorage is expected to be
optional, but am not adding support because I'd have no way of testing
it at present.
Add a textual IR format to the toolchain.
The exact details of the format are somewhat arbitrary right now, and I
expect them to change as we refine the semantics IR model, but at the
moment they're somewhat directly following the current structure of the
IR.
Semantics tests currently test both the "raw" format, which shows the
details of the representation, and the textual format, which is somewhat
higher level. We may want to revisit that decision once the textual
format is a bit more stable, and test only the textual format in most of
these tests, but for now it seems prudent to keep both sets of tests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Richard SmithandChandler Carruth
Jon Ross-Perkins