This is in particular to avoid churn from changes such as #4370. I think
the import list can be helpful (particularly to understand what the
library is aware of), but it's a different trade-off for the prelude
package due to the implicit imports.
This PR makes it so that types can implement the `IndexWith` interface
so that they can provide their custom indexing behavior.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Also surround it in square brackets rather than parentheses. This
matches the format used by Clang and GCC, and means diagnostics will
still match the `file:line:col: error: ` pattern used by some IDE tools.
Before:
```console
fail_builtins.carbon:11:11: error(AliasRequiresNameRef): alias initializer must be a name reference
```
After:
```console
fail_builtins.carbon:11:11: error: alias initializer must be a name reference [AliasRequiresNameRef]
```
Also tighten up test regex to only match on `STDERR` lines that list a
file name.
This is to help identify which diagnostics we're actually using.
Note that driver/testdata still has tests which don't pass this flag,
and so continue to test the kind-less (default) behavior.
Per discussion on #toolchain, add "s" as a special-case for the common
plural format.
Note this removes periods from a few diagnostics; the periods shouldn't
be there per message style. Also, while I'm ignoring llvm::StringLiteral
uses, those should be addressed as #4416 -- this'll probably conflict
and make me clean up one or the other.
A small step to virtual functions - adding vtable pointers to the
layout, but not initializing or otherwise using them at this stage.
A few open design questions I'd love feedback on:
* Is this the right/good enough SemIR representation for now? This patch
adds a `is_dynamic` attribute to `SemIR::Class` and populates/flags it
based on the flag of the base class, or if any virtual function is
declared in the class (or, at least that's my intent). Some other
options include:
* Each `Class` could store a `ClassId` (or `TypeId`?) of the (possibly
indirect, possibly self) base class that is the first one that is
dynamic/has a vtable pointer
* Could make the property narrower, like `has vtable pointer` and have
it `true` only on the type that introduces the vtable - then derived
classes would have to walk their base classes to check if they're the
one that needs to define the vtable pointer or not
* Should the vtable be the first element in the type? If there's a
non-dynamic base type, we could have a layout that's `{<non-dynamic base
type>, vtable ptr, <derived members>}`? Derived types would still be
able to uniquely identify where their vtable pointer is just fine... -
and the vtable pointer is, in a sense, a member of that intermediate
type, so it does seem a bit strange to force it to the front - but I
guess it's probably more efficient in some ways?
Open to any other suggestions/advice/thoughts on the direction, etc.
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Introduces the `BindingPattern` and `SymbolicBindingPattern` insts, and
a separate stack of pattern blocks that they are emitted into. The
intent is to generate the corresponding pattern-matching insts (like
`BindName`) from them in a separate pass, but that is deferred to future
PRs.
See
[here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U_vQH17V893J9aF1LJXUnFYBNSs2MjKl4bJPaWCB2zo/edit?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-w0xGYZ0An31Kpz-wvzSXwQ)
for the design this is based on, but note that during review we have
chosen to deviate from that design by putting the patterns in separate
blocks, and omitting the "forward references" from a `BindingPattern` to
its corresponding `BindName`. This in turn necessitates having separate
inst kinds for symbolic and non-symbolic binding patterns.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Add support for initializing types like `GenericClass(i32)` from a
struct literal. A new kind of instruction, `complete_type_witness`, is
added to the class definition to track the object representation type so
that it's visible to the generics machinery. Accesses to the object
representation of a class have all been updated to pass in the class's
`SpecificId` so that the types of the fields of the specific class are
used instead of the types of the fields of the generic class in places
that look at the object representation -- primarily class
initialization.
I guess this technically would also allow code to pass check that hasn't
before, and that isn't covered by tests (since it's masked by other
failures in the tests that already test this functionality) - should I
add another test/add some code to a valid test case?
Also, this'll miscompile in lowering, since there's no support there yet
- should I do anything about that to make lowering fail in some way? Or
is it acceptable that some things just silently mis-lower? (I could add
a currently-miscompiling test case too, to demonstrate this? (not sure
if the autogenerated tests leave space for comments that would explain
that the currently-tested behavior is incorrect?))
Is the addition to EntityWithParamsBase suitable? of course not all
functions can be virtual, so it's a wasted bit at the moment for all
those cases (though it's free, since it's bitpacked - but as we want to
add more bits in there it might not be a scalable solution)?
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Jon Ross-Perkins
Brymer MenesesandJon Ross-Perkins
Richard Smith
David BlaikieandRichard Smith
Geoff RomerandJon Ross-Perkins