When parsing a pattern, if we encounter something that isn't pattern
syntax, try parsing as an expression instead. We only need one-token
lookahead to distinguish pattern syntax from expression syntax.
Track a precedence group through pattern parsing so that we can allow
different kinds of expressions in a top-level pattern (such as the
operand of `let`) and in a nested pattern (such as a subpattern of a
tuple pattern or within grouping parens). For example, we do not allow
`case if ...`, and for now I've chosen to also not allow logical or
relational operators at the top level of a pattern, so `case 1 + 1` is
OK, but `case 1 == 1` and `case true and false` require parentheses.
This decision should be ratified or revisited by a design proposal.
Very basic check support is also provided, only sufficient to form an
`ExprPattern` instruction and nothing beyond that. For now, all pattern
matching against an `ExprPattern` fails with a TODO error. To support
that, I've switched from calling `BeginSubpattern` in the parent handler
of a pattern and `EndSubpatternAs*` in the pattern handler itself to
calling both functions in parent handlers, with `EndSubpattern`
converting an expression into an expression pattern where needed.
Depends on #6976.
Assisted-by: Gemini via Google Antigravity
Use the same node kind for the body of `case` and `default` handlers. We
don't need to distinguish these in check, so don't create extra node
kinds for them.
In order to make the nodes properly delimited, make the label (`case
...` or `default`) nodes be children of the `=>` node rather than
siblings. This allows us to use the node kind of the `=>` as the
bracketing node for the complete handler, rather than having two
different bracketing node kinds, one for each kind of label.
Also renames variables of that type to match. A follow-up PR will rename
`Parse::StateStackEntry` to `Parse::State`. This is more consistent with
the naming of similar enums elsewhere in the toolchain, and with the
prevailing practice of using `state` rather than e.g. `entry` as the
name of a `StateStackEntry`.
See also discussion
[here](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/963846118964350976/1326280585592700990)
This is a primarily automated change:
- Search & replace for capitalization
-
`(CARBON_DIAGNOSTIC\((?:\n\s+)?\w+,(?:\n\s+)?\s\w+,(?:\n\s+)?\s")([A-Z])`
- `$1\L$2`
- Search & replace for period
-
`(CARBON_DIAGNOSTIC\((?:\n\s+)?\w+,(?:\n\s+)?\s\w+,(?:\n\s+)?\s"(?:[^)]|\n)+)\.("[,)])`
- `$1$2`
- Limited search & replace for `ERROR: ` -> `error: ` in streamed things
- Leaving a TODO for command_line because there's more cleanup that can
be done there
- Modify diagnostic_consumer.cpp
- ERROR -> error
- WARNING -> warning
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Move subtree sizes over to TreeAndSubtrees, using the different
structure to represent the additional parse work that occurs, as well as
making it clear which functions require the extra information. My intent
is to make it hard to use this by accident.
The subtree size is still tracked during Parse::Tree construction. I
think a lot of that can be cleaned up, although we use it during
placeholder assignment so it may take some work. I wanted to see what
people thought about this before taking action on such a change.
I'm using a 1m line source file generated by #4124 for testing. Command
is `time bazel-bin/toolchain/install/prefix_root/bin/carbon compile
--phase=check --dump-mem-usage ~/tmp/data.carbon`
At head, what I'm seeing is:
```
...
parse_tree_.node_impls_:
used_bytes: 61516116
reserved_bytes: 61516116
...
Total:
used_bytes: 447814230
reserved_bytes: 551663894
...
1.43s user 0.14s system 99% cpu 1.565 total
```
With `Tree::Verify` disabled completely, it looks like:
```
parse_tree_.node_impls_:
used_bytes: 41010744
reserved_bytes: 41010744
...
Total:
used_bytes: 427308858
reserved_bytes: 531158522
...
1.20s user 0.13s system 99% cpu 1.332 total
```
Re-enabling just the basic verification (what is now `Tree::Verify`),
I'm seeing maybe 0.05s slower, but that's within noise for my system. I
do see variability in my timing results, and overall I think this is a
0.2s +/- 0.1s improvement versus the earlier (always testing `Extract`
code) implementation. That's opt; debug builds will be unaffected,
because the same checking occurs as before.
Note, the subtree size is a third of the node representation, which is
why I'm showing the decrease in memory usage here.
Most of these are places where we failed to include a header file and
simply never got an error about this. The fix is to include the header
file.
Most other cases are functions that should have been marked `static` but
were not. Finding all of these was a main motivation for me enabling the
warning despite how much work it is.
One complicating factor was that we weren't including the `handle.h` for
all the state-based handler functions. While this isn't a tiny amount of
code, it is just declarations and doesn't add any extra dependencies. It
also lets us have the checking for which functions need to be `static`
and which don't. For the `parse` library I had to add the `handle.h`
header as well, I tried to match the design of it in `check`.
I have also had to work around a bug in the warning, but given the value
it seems to be providing, that seems reasonable. I've filed the bug
upstream: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/94138
I also had to use some hacks to work around limitations of Bazel rules
that wrap `cc_library` rules and don't expose `copts`. I filed a bug for
`cc_proto_library` specifically:
~https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/22610~https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/4446
Richard Smith
Geoff Romer
czapiga
Jon Ross-Perkins
Chandler Carruth