Updating tests in the style of #5455.
array indexing requires integers, so this is a more prelude-dependent
area than some. But as it turns out, writing something like `3` never
references `Core.IntLiteral` so seeing if I can roll with more minimal
preludes.
Don't import `ImplWitnessTable` into the `constants` block, because we
generally don't put `Unique` constants there. This matches the handling
of the other kinds of `Unique` constants. In order to keep the
instruction visible in formatted SemIR, add it to the `imports` block
instead.
Also fix a bug in the instruction formatter that resulted in
instructions in the `imports` block being omitted from the output if
they were only referenced by earlier instructions in the `imports` block
and by instructions in the `constants` block. This was already resulting
in some referenced instructions being omitted from the output, but also
occurred frequently for `impl_witness_table` instructions after this
change because it is common for the only reference to those instructions
to be from `impl_witness` instructions in the `constants` block.
In line with the proposal in #4682, this changes the array syntax to be
array(T, N). `array` is a builtin keyword which must be followed by
parens containing two expressions and a separating comma.
The array type expression is still fully builtin, it does not forward to
a Core.Array library type yet. It merely adds the `ArrayType`
instruction, as was done with the previous syntax.
Followup work will change the instruction to reference to Core.Array,
once the library type exists and can be used directly.
---------
Co-authored-by: zygoloid <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
High level, replacing `Id::Invalid` with `Id::None` and `Id::is_valid`
with `Id::has_value` for clarity, as discussed
[here](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1331664574545395794).
The `IntId` refactoring is needed together with `AnyIdBase` because it's
also used with `ValueStore`.
Note, trying to be careful not to rewrite `EnumBase::InvalidIndex`, or
`is_valid` in general (e.g., `IdKind::is_valid`).
I've tried to sequence commits here:
1. Automatic replacements:
- `((?:Id|Index)(?: |::|\(|Base(?:\(|::)))Invalid((?:Index)?\W)` ->
`$1None$2`
- `<invalid>` -> `<none>`
- `InvalidNodeId` -> `NoneNodeId`
- `/\*invalid\*/` -> `/*none*/`
- `id((?:_|\(\))(?:\.|->))is_valid` -> `id$1has_value`
2. Manual edits:
- In `int.h` and `int_test.cpp`
- `IntT` has `is_value`, which I'm renaming to `is_embedded_value`.
- Manual edits to comments in this file.
- `AnyIdBase` and `IdBase`
- Declaration of `is_valid` -> `has_value`, `InvalidIndex` ->
`NoneIndex`.
- In `ids.h` and `ids.cpp`
- `is_valid` -> `has_value`
- `// An explicitly invalid ID.` -> `// An ID with no value.`; similar
for index
- Various math on `InvalidIndex` -> `NoneIndex`
- Various mentions of "valid" in comments
- In `value_store.h`, for `IdT::Invalid`, plus one comment
- In `impl.h` and `tokenized_buffer.h`, we had different initialization
of `::None` values (versus `ids.h` syntax) that I fixed manually.
- Spot checks to compile
- Particularly where `is_valid` replacements didn't catch spots due to
different naming.
3. Autoupdate tests
4. verbose.carbon (NOAUTOUPDATE)
5. Comment spot checks
Note there are probably other mentions of "Invalid" that should be swept
up, but I'd like to argue for merging and separating out remaining
cleanup since this is so sweeping (and likely to hit merge conflicts
from churn). We'll probably have lingering mentions of "invalid" for a
bit regardless, just because there are uses of "invalid" in non-Id APIs.
Changes the name of SemIR `import_ref`s to use the format
`<package>.<entity>`.
<table>
<tr><th>Before</th><th>After</th></tr>
<tr>
<td><code>%import_ref.05a: type</code></td>
<td><code>%Main.D: type</code></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><code>%import_ref.8f2: <witness></code></td>
<td><code>%Main.import_ref.8f2: <witness></code></td>
</tr>
</table>
* [Discord discussion in
#toolchain](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1330253540999827577)
* Closes#4769
Include the index rather than the name in the fingerprint of a symbolic
binding. While both the index and the name contribute to the canonical
identity, using either one of them in the fingerprint is sufficient to
ensure that distinct entities get different fingerprints. Changing the
name of a symbolic binding should ideally not result in fingerprint
changes, so exclude the name from the fingerprint when we have an index.
Use the canonical type and constraint when fingerprinting an impl, so
that uses of names in `name_ref` instructions aren't considered, only
the entity the name resolves to, and different ways of spelling the same
type have the same fingerprint. This similarly allows compatible changes
to be made to impls without changing the fingerprint.
Exclude the declaration block when determining the fingerprint of a
declaration. The declaration block contains the declarations of
parameters of the declaration, which do affect whether two declarations
are identical, but not whether they denote the same entity, because it
would be invalid to have different declaration blocks for declarations
with the same name in the same scope. Therefore changes to the
declaration block are compatible, and it's useful for such changes to
not affect the fingerprint.
This is not easy to test in isolation with our current testing
machinery. However, a follow-on PR will change the name of a parameter
in the prelude, and with this in place, will not cause any changes to
occur elsewhere in the toolchain tests.
Use it in the instruction namer to make instruction names more stable
across unrelated changes to the toolchain or the prelude.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dana Jansens <danakj@orodu.net>
This is a precondition for enabling the new pattern-matching subsystem
to support binding patterns that have `if` expressions in the type
position.
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Instead of treating `Core.Int` as the toolchain's builtin `IntType`,
model it as a class that adapts the builtin type. This aligns us better
with the intended language model, gives an associated library for
`impl`s involving `Core.Int` to live within, and opens the door adding
member functions to `Core.Int` if we decide that is desirable.
Remarkably it also seems to make the formatted SemIR a little smaller,
because a call to a generic class generates less IR than a call to a
function.
Jon Ross-Perkins
Richard Smith
Geoff Romer
Dana Jansensandzygoloid
Calvin