Note that I left some calls to `is_defined()` where I thought they were
interchangeable.
---------
Co-authored-by: Josh L <josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
This introduces `calling_convention_param_ids`, a single block that
consolidates all the information that was being used by consumers of
`param_refs` and `implicit_param_refs`, in a form that's easier to
produce and typically easier to consume.
See also [this Discord
discussion](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1300545448909738125)
regarding the decision to keep the return slot last in the SemIR calling
convention, even though it goes first in the LLVM calling convention.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
This is at a point where it's getting difficult to read, and #4479 is
adding a large block comment. In order to more clearly delineate
members, add blank lines between.
Also propagate the pattern IR along with the pattern-match IR, and use
it where appropriate.
Strictly speaking, some parts of the pattern-match IR are allocated
eagerly, while traversing the pattern's parse tree, but they still
aren't actually emitted until we traverse the associated pattern insts.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Introduces the `BindingPattern` and `SymbolicBindingPattern` insts, and
a separate stack of pattern blocks that they are emitted into. The
intent is to generate the corresponding pattern-matching insts (like
`BindName`) from them in a separate pass, but that is deferred to future
PRs.
See
[here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U_vQH17V893J9aF1LJXUnFYBNSs2MjKl4bJPaWCB2zo/edit?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-w0xGYZ0An31Kpz-wvzSXwQ)
for the design this is based on, but note that during review we have
chosen to deviate from that design by putting the patterns in separate
blocks, and omitting the "forward references" from a `BindingPattern` to
its corresponding `BindName`. This in turn necessitates having separate
inst kinds for symbolic and non-symbolic binding patterns.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Support for types (particularly classes) is left as a TODO.
There's also an issue I'm observing with a "define in impl" test, but
this is probably an issue with resolving the prior declaration which is
imported indirectly. The PR was already feeling big, so I'm choosing to
cut here.
Note, this does not implement the rule "The owning library's API file
must import the `extern` declaration, and must also contain a
declaration."
This adds fields to `EntityWithParamsBase` to reflect the intention with
`extern library` design. I'm renaming `decl_id` because it shouldn't be
expected to be assigned anymore. import_ref.cpp I'm deliberately keeping
on `first_owning_decl_id` (which will break when importing `extern
library` declarations). Most other cases are for diagnostics, and I'm
using `latest_decl_id` to try and get the closest declaration to the
error. Note I'm partly splitting out this PR to show the test effect,
which apparently we don't test related cases.
It's actually possible to get into all four combinations of having
parameter lists versus being generic:
- An entity nested within a generic, such as a member class, can be
generic even if it has no parameters.
- As a corner case, an entity with an *empty* parameter list has
parameter lists, but isn't a generic because it doesn't have any generic
parameters.
I'd considered moving DeclParams uses over, but when handling qualified
names, there's a parse node instead of an instruction. I did try to
unify a couple other uses though, including adding MergeDefinition. I
expect `interface` will use a little more once it's more completely
implemented, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
josh11bandJosh L
Geoff RomerandJon Ross-Perkins
Richard Smith