This is trying to make it clearer when vectors are being indexed with
`CheckIRId`.
The only one that I still kind of want to change is the
`SmallVector<std::unique_ptr<CompilationUnit>>`, but because it's a
`unique_ptr` that's a little more complex. I may not bother.
Note, some of the changes around nuanced `SmallVector` interactions were
based on trying to copy the way `SmallVector` itself takes arguments,
like with range passing.
Trying to build a type around the common idiom we have for types based
on an Id range. The primary advantage of this is it makes clear the `Id`
association, and drops the `.index` use.
Lowering was motivating me because it has a few of these, and check
probably has more (e.g. `tree_and_subtrees_getters`), but I'm just
changing a handful of examples to show the concept and see if there's
agreement.
I wanted to inherit from ValueStoreTypes, but name lookup didn't seem to
find the types without `using` statements, at which point there didn't
seem to be much reason to use inheritance.
This consolidates Lex::TokenizedBuffer::DumpSemIRRange and
Parse::TreeAndSubtrees::TokenRange into a single InclusiveTokenRange,
also making the OverlapsWithDumpSemIRRange function take the new struct.
I considered switching to `llvm::iterator_range<Lex::TokenIterator>`,
but we often want to see if the range is size one. Using `TokenIterator`
just looked like it'd add a bunch of offsetting to make it work; I view
that as low-value overhead.
For example:
```
Lex::InclusiveTokenRange token_range = GetSubtreeTokenRange(node_id);
auto begin_loc = tree_->tokens().TokenToDiagnosticLoc(token_range.begin);
if (token_range.begin == token_range.end) {
return begin_loc;
}
auto end_loc = tree_->tokens().TokenToDiagnosticLoc(token_range.end);
```
would become:
```
llvm::iterator_range<Lex::TokenIterator> token_range = GetSubtreeTokenRange(node_id);
auto begin_loc = tree_->tokens().TokenToDiagnosticLoc(*token_range.begin());
if (token_range.begin() + 1 == token_range.end()) {
return begin_loc;
}
auto end_loc = tree_->tokens().TokenToDiagnosticLoc(*(token_range.end() - 1));
```
So I'm keeping the bespoke struct.
What this really does is avoids shadowing names, so that we can
comfortable have things like `Check::DiagnosticEmitter` or
`Check::DiagnosticLoc` without shadowing being a concern.
Note, down this path I'm also thinking about:
- Renaming misc DiagnosticConsumer/DiagnosticEmitter classes, possibly
just to DiagnosticConsumer/DiagnosticEmitter (so
`Check::DiagnosticEmitter` instead of `SemIRLocDiagnosticEmitter`).
- Dropping `Diagnostic` from `Emitter::DiagnosticBuilder`.
- But not for `Check::DiagnosticBuilder`, because `Check::Builder` would
be ambiguous.
- Renaming diagnostics/diagnostic_* to drop "diagnostic".
[Discussion about SemIRLoc ->
DiagnosticLoc](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1353771570463768698)
reminded me of this (in particular the older [Check::DiagnosticBuilder
discussion](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1344363562608627763)),
but I'd only do that rename if there's matching consensus about a path
forward where we keep SemIRLoc, and in a way that it's only ever used
for diagnostics (the divergence from which is at the root of current
LocId discussion).
I'm trying to keep that separate from a namespace addition for clarity.
Also makes the style guide explicitly comment on void, but this was the
intent IIRC because it matches Carbon's `-> ()` (and "always" versus
"except for void", which we definitely went back and forth on).
Includes adjusting function pointers, which I definitely forget this
syntax works sometimes.
Excludes utils/tree_sitter/src/scanner.c because it claims to be C, but
really we should probably fix that to be cpp.
At present, lower depends on `Check::SemIRDiagnosticConverter` for debug
info. That was to support a quick implementation of debug info, but
isn't great because it's both an unusual dependency on check's
implementation, and relying on diagnostic structures for debug info.
This cleans that up by splitting relevant logic out to a library in
sem_ir, and having lowering use sem_ir's library instead of check's.
Additionally, a small refactoring of `Parse::TreeAndSubtrees` to allow
getting locations in lowering without going through a `DiagnosticLoc`.
I'm adding `Parse::GetTreeAndSubtreesFn` in because it's a complex
signature to have in so many spots.
I chose to have `ResolveNodeId` return a `SmallVector` because it seemed
likely to be fairly compact, but that could also be using an optional
callback to handle resolved node IDs, possibly just returning the last
entry. This could be switched if preferred.
Note this change shouldn't affect behavior, it's just moving code
around.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
I'm looking at eliminating `DiagnosticConverter`. This change removes
`NodeLocConverter` (albeit adding `UnitAndImportsDiagnosticConverter`),
and in doing so, refactors lex conversion functions to extract them out
from the `DiagnosticConverter` functions.
I'll be following up with changes that collapse `DiagnosticConverter`
logic into `DiagnosticEmitter` locations. The intent is that we
shouldn't need separate ownership of both types.
Came up on #4831, style:
"For a type T whose values can be compared for equality, define a
non-member operator== and document when two values of type T are
considered equal."
https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Operator_Overloading
Note while we could put some of these out-of-line, it's helpful to keep
them inside the braces:
- For private member access
- For templated cases so that we aren't duplicating templates
- Very mild preference for keeping class's API documented within the
braces
This switches `DCHECK` and `FATAL` as well.
The goal is to reduce the code size impact of these assertions so that
we can keep more of them enabled. Currently, the largest cost I see from
`CHECK` is not the actual check or the cold code itself, but actually
the failure to inline trivial functions due to the presence of the cold
code. This means that our goal isn't to reduce apparent code size in the
final binary but the LLVM IR cost assessed for these routines in the
inliner, which closely correlates with code size but is a bit different.
As discussed in #4283, experimentation shows that a single function call
with a minimal number of arguments is the lowest cost model for these.
This is easily achieved with a format-string API that internally uses
`llvm::formatv`. This PR is essentially the `CHECK` version of #4283.
However, the check macros are substantially harder to make work with
both format strings and streaming because they also take a condition.
Also, unexpectedly, I was very successful at devising a regular
expression based automated rewrite from the streaming to the format
string form with only low 10s of manual fixes. This includes compacting
strings broken up across lines, etc. Given how well that went, I've
prepared this PR which just directly switches to the format string API
and migrate everything to use it.
One nice side-effect is that the format string approach ends up greatly
simplifying the implementation here as well.
This is ... *shockingly* effective. Parsing speeds up by more than 3%
with just this change. And checking speeds up by **8%** with this change
alone:
```
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/256 86.3µs ± 1% 82.9µs ± 1% -3.94% (p=0.000 n=17+19)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/1024 431µs ± 1% 415µs ± 1% -3.76% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/4096 1.77ms ± 1% 1.71ms ± 1% -3.18% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/16384 7.44ms ± 1% 7.17ms ± 2% -3.56% (p=0.000 n=18+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/65536 30.7ms ± 1% 29.7ms ± 1% -3.15% (p=0.000 n=18+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/262144 131ms ± 1% 127ms ± 1% -2.81% (p=0.000 n=18+18)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/256 878µs ± 2% 800µs ± 1% -8.91% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/1024 1.88ms ± 2% 1.72ms ± 1% -8.56% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/4096 5.78ms ± 2% 5.28ms ± 1% -8.70% (p=0.000 n=20+18)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/16384 21.9ms ± 1% 20.1ms ± 1% -8.02% (p=0.000 n=18+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/65536 90.4ms ± 2% 83.1ms ± 1% -8.04% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/262144 381ms ± 2% 352ms ± 1% -7.79% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Co-authored-by: josh11b <15258583+josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
Jon Ross-Perkins
