This is the beginning of an incremental refactoring to remove generics, to
simplify the ASG. When I initially wrote the linker, I wasn't sure what
direction I was going in, but I was also negatively influenced by more
traditional approaches to both design and unit testing.
If we're going to call the ASG an IR, then it needs to be one---if the core
of the IR is generic, then it's more like an abstract data structure than
anything. We can abstract around the IR to slice it up into components that
are a little easier to reason about and understand how responsibilities are
segregated.
DEV-11864
RSG (Ryan Specialty Group) recently announced a rename to Ryan Specialty (no
"Group"), but I'm not sure if the legal name has been changed yet or not, so
I'll wait on that.
This is simply not worth it; the size is not going to be the bottleneck (at
least any time soon) and the generic not only pollutes all the things that
will use ASG in the near future, but is also incompatible with the SymbolId
default that is used everywhere; if we have to force it to 32 bits anyway,
then we may as well just default it right off the bat.
I thought that this seemed like a good idea at the time, and saving bits is
certainly tempting, but it was premature.
See the previous commit. There is no sense in some common "IR" namespace,
since those IRs should live close to whatever system whose data they
represent.
In the case of these, they are general IRs that can apply to many different
parts of the system. If that proves to be a false statement, they'll be
moved.
DEV-10863
The IRs really ought to live where they are owned, especially given that
"IR" is so generic that it makes no sense for there to be a single location
for them; they're just data structures coupled with different phases of
compilation.
This will be renamed next commit; see that for details.
This also removes some documentation describing the lowering process,
because it's undergone a number of changes and needs to be accurately
re-summarized in another location. That will come at a later time after the
work is further along so that I don't have to keep spending the time
rewriting it.
DEV-10863
Tbh, I was unaware that this was supported by tuple variants until reading
over the Rustc source code for something. (Which I had previously read, but
I must have missed it.)
This is more proper, in the sense that in a lot of cases we not only care
about how many values a tuple has, but if we explicitly match on them using
`_`, then any time we modify the number of values, it would _break_ any code
doing so. Using this method, we improve maintainability by not causing
breakages under those circumstances.
But, consequently, it's important that we use this only when we _really_
don't care and don't want to be notified by the compiler.
I did not use `..` as a prefix, even where supported, because the intent is
to append additional information to tuples. Consequently, I also used `..`
in places where no additional fields currently exist, since they may in the
future (e.g. introducing `Span` for `IdentObject`).
In particular, `name` needn't return an `Option`. `fragment` also returns a
copy, since it's just a `SymbolId`. (It really ought to be a newtype rather
than an alias, but we'll worry about that some other time.)
These changes allow us to remove some runtime panics.
DEV-10859
This moves the logic that sorts identifiers into sections into Sections
itself, and introduces XmleSections to allow for mocking for testing.
This then allows us to narrow the types significantly, eliminating some
runtime checks. The types can be narrowed further, but I'll be limiting the
work I'll be doing now; this'll be inevitably addressed as we use the ASG
for the compiler.
This also handles moving Sections tests, which was a TODO from the previous
commit.
DEV-10859
This is the appropriate place to be, now that we've begun narrowing the
types. We'll be able to do so further; this is just the first step.
This does not yet move the tests, but the code is still tested because it's
tightly coupled with `sort`. Those will move in the next commit(s).
DEV-10859
xmle sections will only ever contain an object of one type, so there is no
use in making this generic.
I think the original plan was to have this represent, generically, sections
of some object file (like ELF), but doing so would require a significant
redesign anyway, so it makes no sense. This is easier to reason about.
DEV-10859
This has always been a lowering operation, but it was not phrased in terms
of it, which made the process a bit more confusing to understand.
The implementation hasn't changed, but this is an incremental refactoring
and so exposes BaseAsg and its `graph` field temporarily.
DEV-10859
Mike Gerwitz