A small step to virtual functions - adding vtable pointers to the
layout, but not initializing or otherwise using them at this stage.
A few open design questions I'd love feedback on:
* Is this the right/good enough SemIR representation for now? This patch
adds a `is_dynamic` attribute to `SemIR::Class` and populates/flags it
based on the flag of the base class, or if any virtual function is
declared in the class (or, at least that's my intent). Some other
options include:
* Each `Class` could store a `ClassId` (or `TypeId`?) of the (possibly
indirect, possibly self) base class that is the first one that is
dynamic/has a vtable pointer
* Could make the property narrower, like `has vtable pointer` and have
it `true` only on the type that introduces the vtable - then derived
classes would have to walk their base classes to check if they're the
one that needs to define the vtable pointer or not
* Should the vtable be the first element in the type? If there's a
non-dynamic base type, we could have a layout that's `{<non-dynamic base
type>, vtable ptr, <derived members>}`? Derived types would still be
able to uniquely identify where their vtable pointer is just fine... -
and the vtable pointer is, in a sense, a member of that intermediate
type, so it does seem a bit strange to force it to the front - but I
guess it's probably more efficient in some ways?
Open to any other suggestions/advice/thoughts on the direction, etc.
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Right now, there is no checking of `where` requirements. The result of a
where expression is just the type on the left-hand side. It does now
introduce `.Self` so that it is available in expressions on the
right-hand side, in addition to designators corresponding to the members
of type on the left-hand side. Note, though, that diagnostics could
still be improved significantly.
---------
Co-authored-by: Josh L <josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
This switches `DCHECK` and `FATAL` as well.
The goal is to reduce the code size impact of these assertions so that
we can keep more of them enabled. Currently, the largest cost I see from
`CHECK` is not the actual check or the cold code itself, but actually
the failure to inline trivial functions due to the presence of the cold
code. This means that our goal isn't to reduce apparent code size in the
final binary but the LLVM IR cost assessed for these routines in the
inliner, which closely correlates with code size but is a bit different.
As discussed in #4283, experimentation shows that a single function call
with a minimal number of arguments is the lowest cost model for these.
This is easily achieved with a format-string API that internally uses
`llvm::formatv`. This PR is essentially the `CHECK` version of #4283.
However, the check macros are substantially harder to make work with
both format strings and streaming because they also take a condition.
Also, unexpectedly, I was very successful at devising a regular
expression based automated rewrite from the streaming to the format
string form with only low 10s of manual fixes. This includes compacting
strings broken up across lines, etc. Given how well that went, I've
prepared this PR which just directly switches to the format string API
and migrate everything to use it.
One nice side-effect is that the format string approach ends up greatly
simplifying the implementation here as well.
This is ... *shockingly* effective. Parsing speeds up by more than 3%
with just this change. And checking speeds up by **8%** with this change
alone:
```
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/256 86.3µs ± 1% 82.9µs ± 1% -3.94% (p=0.000 n=17+19)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/1024 431µs ± 1% 415µs ± 1% -3.76% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/4096 1.77ms ± 1% 1.71ms ± 1% -3.18% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/16384 7.44ms ± 1% 7.17ms ± 2% -3.56% (p=0.000 n=18+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/65536 30.7ms ± 1% 29.7ms ± 1% -3.15% (p=0.000 n=18+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/262144 131ms ± 1% 127ms ± 1% -2.81% (p=0.000 n=18+18)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/256 878µs ± 2% 800µs ± 1% -8.91% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/1024 1.88ms ± 2% 1.72ms ± 1% -8.56% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/4096 5.78ms ± 2% 5.28ms ± 1% -8.70% (p=0.000 n=20+18)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/16384 21.9ms ± 1% 20.1ms ± 1% -8.02% (p=0.000 n=18+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/65536 90.4ms ± 2% 83.1ms ± 1% -8.04% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/262144 381ms ± 2% 352ms ± 1% -7.79% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Co-authored-by: josh11b <15258583+josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
Switch from recursing into non-canonical instruction fields to
separately canonicalizing those fields. This means we now form canonical
`InstBlockId`s, `TypeBlockId`s, `IntId`s, `FloatId`s, and `BindNameId`s
at least in the cases when they're referenced by a constant instruction.
This reduces the overall runtime for @chandlerc's 10MLoC example by
27.5% on my machine.
I'm proposing a different split, along the line of "what does this
relate to". I view impl.h as having started down this route. Moving the
inst store stuff to inst.h feels odd to me given how much else is there
right now, but maybe it's still the best approach. Some files only
contain a store, no structured class, but I felt the consistency in file
naming (without _store suffixes) might help.
David BlaikieandRichard Smith
