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.
This is for consistency with #4120. Similar to that, we can use
overloads on the typed NodeId rather than individually named handlers.
There isn't the same caller benefit here though, since the calls from
check.cpp are already boilerplate.
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
This was previously discussed at
https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1209975051588210729.
I'm initiating this mainly because we typically use "id" suffixes to
indicate an `IdBase` being passed around and the non-id suffix of
`parse_node` suggests at it carrying more data than it actually does.
There used to be more reason for avoiding `node_id` because
`SemIR::InstId` used to be named `NodeId`, but that's no longer
necessary. As a consequence, I'd like to rename `parse_node` to more
precisely reflect its type.
In full, this is doing:
```
parse_node_kind -> node_kind
parse_node -> node_id
ParseNodeCategory -> NodeCategory
ParseNodeKind -> NodeKind
ParseNode -> NodeId
```
This is primarily in check and sem_ir, but with some `parse_node_kind`
references in parse too.
Pluralization is consistent with name forms on both sides, so that
wasn't part of my replacements.
Richard Smith
Jon Ross-Perkins
Chandler Carruth
czapiga