As discussed in toolchain meeting, we want to avoid overloading the
meaning of "instance", and "specific" was the best name we found. It's a
little unorthodox and inventive, but hopefully over time will become as
unsurprising as the term "generic" is.
For each generic, build a list of instructions describing the
computations we need to do when resolving an instance of the generic:
this is a list of the instance-specific constants and types that the
generic uses. Another way of viewing this list is as a block of Carbon
SemIR code that is evaluated in order to form an instance of the generic
-- this is referenced in the code as the "eval block" for the generic.
For each instruction in the generic whose type or value is a symbolic
constant, replace that type or constant value with a symbolic reference
that says "to find the actual type or value, look at index N in the list
of values for the generic instance".
For an instruction with a symbolic constant value, we can just add that
instruction to our list. For an instruction with a symbolic constant
type, however, we may not have a corresponding instruction computing the
type within the generic and may need to build a new instruction, but
will reuse one where possible. In the case where we build a new
instruction, we use the existing substitution code to build the type
within the eval block.
For now, this transformation is only done in the declaration region of
the generic, not in the definition region. Also, we map back from the
symbolic references to the underlying constant value in a few places
where we will eventually need to do a lookup into a generic instance, in
order to avoid regressing the tests.
In a `class C(T:! type)`, the type `Self` should be `C(T)`, not merely
`C`. Similarly, in an `interface I(T:! type)`, the type of self should
be `I(T)`, not merely `I`.
When constant evaluation produces a known non-symbolic value, treat the
result as a symbolic constant anyway if the type of the value is
symbolic.
We don't yet have many ways to produce a constant that has a known value
but a symbolic type. The added test case is one such way: an array `[T;
0]` initialized from `()` is a symbolic constant only because its type
is symbolic -- we know its value is always `()`. More ways to form such
constants will be appearing soon as we start to support generics: for
example, a method of a generic class has a symbolic type but a known
constant value of `{}`.
When substituting into a symbolic constant, also substitute into its
type.
Require mapping from a `ConstantId` to an `InstId` to go through the
`ConstantValueStore`.
This is a preparatory step for an upcoming generics change where
symbolic `ConstantId`s are no longer just a thin wrapper around an
`InstId` but instead are indexes into a table with additional
information about the symbolic constant beyond its `InstId`.
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.
Use a level comparison during substitution to determine whether we're
substituting a particular binding. Evaluate symbolic bindings with the
same name and the same level to the same symbolic constant, for example
across redeclarations of a generic function.
Add a general substitution mechanism to support substituting symbolic
bindings with their values throughout symbolic constants and, more
specifically, types. This is done by decomposing the constant
instruction into its operands, substituting into the operands, and then
rebuilding the constant value by invoking the constant evaluator.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Carbon Infra Bot <carbon-external-infra@google.com>
Richard Smith
Geoff Romer
