Instead of building an eval block as a separate pass at the end of a
generic, build the eval block incrementally.
The larger change here is that asking for the type or constant value of
an instruction now always returns an unattached type or constant value,
in order to preserve the behavior that we previously achieved by doing
the rewrite to attached types and constant values at the end of handling
the generic.
This also incidentally fixes some subtle issues where attached types and
constant values would leak out into check and cause it to get confused
about differences between attached and unattached values. Check should
no longer see attached values except where it explicitly asks for them.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dana Jansens <danakj@orodu.net>
This fake generic was used for two reasons:
- The declaration name stack assumes that each declaration name is
processed within a generic scope. This is important if the name might
have generic parameters, which are always parsed even for declarations
that disallow them in check.
- Out-of-line redeclarations of generic entities produce instructions
with symbolic constant values in non-generic scopes.
The former case is addressed by pushing a generic each time we start a
declaration name, even if we will reject generic parameters later. The
latter case is worked around for now by not building a symbolic constant
type or value for instructions that appear outside of any generic, and
will be addressed more completely by #5310 and follow-ups.
Based on discussion around the region handling in generic_region_stack,
create a generic structure for the stack-of-vectors support. I also want
to add this to InstBlockStack, but that's a little more complex due to
GlobalInit, so cutting a PR here to check with review.
My work here is how I noticed #4099; I want to be sure that I'm correct
about the issue, but it's the difference between being able to use
PeekArray or not.
Note in scope_stack.h, I believe we could remove next_compile_time_index
and make it just based on elements_size(). However, I want to verify
with you before I make further changes there.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
When checking a declaration or definition of a generic, track a list of
created instructions that depend on the generic's parameters in some
way, along with information on how they depend on the parameters. This
will eventually be used to determine what information we need to compute
when creating instances of the generic, but for now we're just building
the list.
Information is tracked separately for the declaration region and the
definition region of the generic, because in general these may be first
provided in separate declarations, and they should be substituted into
at different times.
Richard SmithandDana Jansens
Jon Ross-PerkinsandChandler Carruth