In `BuildUnaryOperator`, `GetOperatorOpFunction` is treated as
desugaring, but `PerformCompoundMemberAccess` and `PerformCall` are not.
This treats all of destruction as desugaring.
This leads to some instructions being elided, because of `GetOrAddInst`
behaviors:
> // If the instruction has a desugared location and a constant value,
returns
> // the constant value's instruction ID. Otherwise, same as AddInst.
This changes instructions that previously had a non-desugared location
to instead have a desugared location, so if they also have a constant
value then the constant value can be used directly.
This just catches uses equivalent to `return;` and `return <expr>;`.
Note it's just extending the current implicit return logic, not really
adding much unique here.
I'm still delaying break and continue because those require partial
destruction, which is more work and I want to be careful to get it
right.
This changes `Destroy` to use an interface for its implementation.
Note that this change includes a lot of test updates. Even when
`Destroy` is a no-op, it still causes code generation as part of
determining that.
Originally I was trying to use ranges to cut down the scope of this, and
to a degree I think they have. But a flipside here is that cases where
no destructors should be generated -- particularly globals -- would be
needed to completely remove destructor calls. Even for ranges, the range
can often include the destructor placement. So I've shifted
frame-of-thought a little: accept a bunch of destructor churn, because
destructors are needed and will be prevalent. The verbosity is a feature
of the design to make desugaring apparent in IR, not a bug.
Right now, return_scope_stack is being used to determine whether logic
is in a function scope. However, we need to handle nested entities
inside function scopes. For example where this crashes right now:
```
base class C(B:! bool) {}
fn F() {
class B {
extend base: C(true or false);
}
}
```
This is doing a few things to make this kind of code not crash:
- Split `scope_stack().Push` into `PushForDeclName`, `PushForEntity`,
`PushForExpr`, and `PushForFunction` so that better decisions can be
made about behaviors.
- Hide `return_scope_stack` in the API, instead using interfaces to get
at the underlying data.
- Also using `PushForFunction` to update it similar to the other stacks
that `ScopeStack` manages.
- Add `IsInFunctionScope` as the best way to determine presence in
function scope.
- Remove `PeekIsLexicalScope` since destruction really wants function
scope information anyways.
- Clean up `destroy_id_stack` handling to be for function scopes rather
than lexical scopes.
- Return after related `context.TODO`s in a couple more spots, so that
code doesn't proceed to add control flow in spite of the lack of
support.
---------
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
We frequently want to operate on singletons. Per discussion, drop
`Singleton` to make the code shorter.
This started off as wanting to write `inst_id.is_error()`, but the
dependency relationship between ids.h and singleton_insts.h would
require some kind of delayed evaluation to allow the implementation to
remain in headers (which I suspect is helpful to have for inlining). I
could have added something like `IsErrorInst`, forward declared in ids.h
and defined in singleton_insts.h (which would always be included by
typed_insts.h), but the template approach felt like a decent balance
between (a) removing the boilerplate `::SingletonInstId`, (b)
understandability, (c) still visually mirroring if we immediately return
a singleton, and (d) flexibility for more than just `ErrorInst`. But TBH
I'd probably still have written `is_error()` if it didn't require
addressing the cross-header cycle.
Then I tried `SemIR::InstId::Is<SemIR::ErrorInst>`, which generally
worked with types but generated the complaint that it didn't shorten
*all* singleton uses. So pulling back on `::Is`, and instead just
dropping `Singleton`.
What this does:
- Adds tracking where storage is allocated.
- Determines if that storage supports destruction and, if so, records
the `destroy` function for it.
- Calls any found `destroy` functions when going out-of-scope.
What this does not do:
- Precise scope tracking of temporaries. We currently don't define
temporary scopes, which would probably be the solution.
- Destruction for anything but a `class` with `fn destroy`, in an
implicit return. That excludes:
- Classes with members that need destruction, particularly in the
absence of `fn destroy`.
- Structs, tuples, and arrays.
- Explicit returns, break, continue, nested scopes.
Noting the exclusions in particular, I think those will need work to
support, but this should set the right framework.
The cleanup block concept stems from clang and trying to share code
across cleanups, from discussion with chandlerc. Note in this
implementation I try to find `destroy` functions early on: that's so
that, when destruction is present on multiple paths, particularly
non-shared paths, we only bind the `destroy` method once.
Implementation-wise, I'll note this adds a `has_cleanup` flag to
`TemporaryStorage` and `VarStorage`. There are several related options,
but this felt similar to other information we're trying to track on
instructions. My goal with this is to mitigate the chance of accidental
calls where the storage may not be tracked for destruction. Alternatives
I considered were to not add the flag (I was worried about heightened
risk of errors), or to just add a concept for the relevant `requires`
(which just felt inconsistent).
Cleanup logic ends up in control_flow in this change because I thought
it was a reasonably consistent place for the cleanup block concept and
its pretty direct control flow interactions.
`AddDefaultValue` doesn't quite capture the intended semantics; it
should typically be replaced with an actual value when dealing with
control flows. Trying to indicate the "assign later" with
`AddPlaceholder`, mirroring `AddPlaceholderInst`.
Shifting the `protected` functionality on `BlockValueStore` so that it's
not providing functions just for `InstBlockStore` to use. Also hoping
that seeing the comments next to the function name makes them easier to
understand, whereas `using` buries that a little.
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
This in particular uses free functions because it's likely to end up
more consistent with types (versus a wrapper object for InstStore).
Note, this is unlikely to have a performance impact, but if it does, we
can look into related approaches (and we've already discussed using
LTO).
Renames `PendingBlock::AddInst` to `PendingBlock::Add` because
`MakeElementAccessInst` expects the matching name to exist.
context.cpp is getting large, so I'm looking at a few ways to cut out
clusters of functions. This felt like a logical cluster of functions to
move to their own file.
Note this doesn't touch the implementation at all, beyond what's needed
to change from `Context` members to context args.
Jon Ross-Perkins
Thomas Köppe
