`SpecificInterface` seems oddly placed. It appears to be in ids.h just
because it's used by typed_insts.h, but maybe that should be factored
differently? We typically aren't having typed_insts.h depend on non-ID
types. To that end, I'm splitting it out to its own file so that at
least I'm not adding a `ValueStore` dep inside ids.h
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
This is reducing ValueStore inference of types from `using`, and removes
`using ValueType = ...` from affected id types.
I'm adding a number of `using FooStore = ValueStore<FooId, Foo>` because
I think it's a little repetitive otherwise; often 4 cases where I'm
doing this: getter, const getter, member, and getter on `Context`. Note
we also have a number of `-> decltype(auto)` that were added I think
mainly to avoid repeating the type, but I'm not sure whether there'll be
agreement on replacing those and so am not changing them here.
I'm placing these aliases with the value type in general, because I
think it's probably easier to view that way. An alternative would be to
put all the types on `File`, but:
- That would be inconsistent with things like `InstStore`, which are
very `ValueStore`-adjacent and put with their value type.
- `File` would have a _lot_ of using's, and the accessors are already
noisy -- I think it would just make the file harder to skim.
Note this is the heart of what I'd brought up [on
Discord](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1388199282250613019).
This PR still leaves CanonicalValueStore and BlockValueStore as things
to also add parameters to, but I thought it best to try breaking the set
of changes apart by type. Both of those rely on ValueStore, so
ValueStore needs to change first.
As I'm looking at splitting value type setting out, this is to make it a
bit easier to see what's part of each type. Note, I expect
`ValueStoreTypes` to remain because of the `StringRef` logic it does --
I'm giving that its own file.
This switches from `int_store*` to `int*` as this file contains both the
ID and the store for integers.
This was supposed to be added to #4487 before merging, apologies for
missing that.
The first change here is to canonicalize away bit width when tracking
integers in our shared value store. This lets us have a more definitive
model of "what is the mathematical value". It also frees us to use more
efficient bit widths when available, such as bits inside the ID itself.
For canonicalizing, we try to minimize the width adjustments and
maximize the use of the SSO in APInt, and so we never shrink belowe
64-bits and grow in multiples of the word bit width in the
implementation. We also canonicalize to the signed 2s compliment
representation so we can represent negative numbers in an intuitive way.
The canonicalizing requires getting the bit width out of the type and
adjusting to it within the toolchain when doing any kind of math, and
this PR updates various places to do that, as well as adding some
convenience APIs to assist.
Then we take advantage of the canonical form and embed small integers
into the ID itself rather than allocating storage for them and
referencing them with an index. This is especially helpful for the
pervasive small integers such as the sizes of types, arrays, etc. Those
no longer require indirection at all. Various short-cut APIs to take
advantage of this have also been added.
This PR improves lexing by about 5% when there are lots of `i32` types.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dana Jansens <danakj@orodu.net>
Co-authored-by: Carbon Infra Bot <carbon-external-infra@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
This is in anticipation of making the integer value store be customized
heavily. I'd like to extract it from the common code when doing that, so
first disentangling them here without any intended change in
functionality or behavior to enable that.
I've tried to update `#include`s to be as minimal as I can and added a
few missing includes spotted in the process.
I've split the test for value store to include what was easy focused on
just the value store templates rather than the unified shared value
stores.
This might surface some opportunities for adding more tests, but for
this PR, just doing the minimal restructuring.
Jon Ross-PerkinsandRichard Smith
Chandler Carruth
