A previous commit mentioned that there's not a place for `Dim`, and
duplicated it between `asg` and `xmlo`. Well, `Dtype` is also needed in
both, and so here's a home for now.
`Dtype` has always been an inappropriate detail for the system and will one
day be removed entirely in favor of higher-level types; the machine
representation is up to the compiler to decide.
DEV-11864
asg_builder is about to be replaced, but in the process of simplifying the
destination IR (the ASG), I'm moving things into the proper place. This
never belonged here---it belongs with the actual lowering operation.
Previously, this was not reasoned about in terms of a lowering operation,
and was written when I was first introducing myself to Rust and trying to
get a proof-of-concept linker working.
DEV-11864
In the actual implementation (outside of tests), this is always looking up
before adding the symbol. This will simplify the API, while still retaining
errors, since the identifier will fail the state transition if the
identifier did not exist before attempting to set a fragment. So while this
is slower in microbenchmarks, this has no effect on real-world performance.
Further, I'm refactoring toward a streaming ASG aggregation, which is a lot
easier if we do not need to perform lookups in a separate step from the
ASG's primitives.
DEV-11864
These traits are no longer necessary now that I'm using concrete types; they
just add unnecessary noise and confusion as I attempt to further refactor.
Don't abstract prematurely.
DEV-11864
This removes the generic on the Asg (which was formerly BaseAsg),
hard-coding `IdentObject`, which will further evolve. This makes the IR an
actual concrete IR rather than an abstract data structure.
These tests bring me back a bit, since they were written as I was still
becoming familiar with Rust.
DEV-11864
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
Mike Gerwitz