This has been a long time coming. The wiring of it all together is a little
rough around the edges right now, but this commit represents a working POC
to begin to fill in the gaps for the entire lowering pipeline.
I had hoped to be at this point a year ago. Yeah.
This marks a significant milestone in the project because this allows me to
begin to observe the implementation end-to-end, testing it on real-life
inputs as part of a production build pipeline.
...and now, with that, we can begin. So much work has gone into this
project so far, but aside from the linker (which has been in production for
years), most of this work has been foundational. It's been a significant
investment that I intend to have pay off in many different ways.
(All this outputs right now is `<package/>`.)
DEV-13708
This begins to introduce a graph traversal useful for a source
reconstruction from the current state of the ASG. The idea is to, after
having parsed and ingested the source through the lowering pipeline, to
re-output it to (a) prove that we have parsed correctly and (b) allow
progressively moving things from the XSLT-based compiler into TAMER.
There's quite a bit of documentation here; see that for more
information. Generalizing this in an appropriate way took some time, but I
think this makes sense (that work began with the introduction of cross edges
in terms of the tree described by the graph's ontology). But I do need to
come up with an illustration to include in the documentation.
DEV-13708
This allows for edges to be multiple types, and gives us two important
benefits:
(a) Compiler-verified correctness to ensure that we don't generate graphs
that do not adhere to the ontology; and
(b) Runtime verification of types, so that bugs are still memory safe.
There is a lot more information in the documentation within the patch.
This took a lot of iterating to get something that was tolerable. There's
quite a bit of boilerplate here, and maybe that'll be abstracted away better
in the future as the graph grows.
In particular, it was challenging to determine how I wanted to actually go
about narrowing and looking up edges. Initially I had hoped to represent
the subsets as `ObjectKind`s as well so that you could use them anywhere
`ObjectKind` was expected, but that proved to be far too difficult because I
cannot return a reference to a subset of `Object` (the value would be owned
on generation). And while in a language like C maybe I'd pad structures and
cast between them safely, since they _do_ overlap, I can't confidently do
that here since Rust's discriminant and layout are not under my control.
I tried playing around with `std::mem::Discriminant` as well, but
`discriminant` (the function) requires a _value_, meaning I couldn't get the
discriminant of a static `Object` variant without some dummy value; wasn't
worth it over `ObjectRelTy.` We further can't assign values to enum
variants unless they hold no data. Rust a decade from now may be different
and will be interesting to look back on this struggle.
DEV-13597
The ASG delegates certain operations to Objects so that they may enforce
their own invariants and ontology. It is therefore important that only
objects have access to certain methods on `Asg`, otherwise those invariants
could be circumvented.
It should be noted that the nesting of this module is such that AIR should
_not_ have privileged access to the ASG---it too must utilize objects to
ensure those invariants are enforced in a single place.
DEV-13597
Starting to re-organize things to match my mental model of the new system;
the ASG abstraction has changed quite a bit since the early days.
This isn't quite enough, though; see next commit.
DEV-13597
This makes the system a bit more ergonomic and introduces additional type
safety by associating the narrowed object type with the
`ObjectIndex` (previously `ObjectRef`). Not only does this allow us to
explicitly state the type of object wherever those indices are stored, but
it also allows the API to automatically narrow to that type when operating
on it again without the caller having to worry about it.
DEV-13160
This begins to place expressions on the graph---something that I've been
thinking about for a couple of years now, so it's interesting to finally be
doing it.
This is going to evolve; I want to get some things committed so that it's
clear how I'm moving forward. The ASG makes things a bit awkward for a
number of reasons:
1. I'm dealing with older code where I had a different model of doing
things;
2. It's mutable, rather than the mostly-functional lowering pipeline;
3. We're dealing with an aggregate ever-evolving blob of data (the graph)
rather than a stream of tokens; and
4. We don't have as many type guarantees.
I've shown with the lowering pipeline that I'm able to take a mutable
reference and convert it into something that's both functional and
performant, where I remove it from its container (an `Option`), create a new
version of it, and place it back. Rust is able to optimize away the memcpys
and such and just directly manipulate the underlying value, which is often a
register with all of the inlining.
_But_ this is a different scenario now. The lowering pipeline has a narrow
context. The graph has to keep hitting memory. So we'll see how this
goes. But it's most important to get this working and measure how it
performs; I'm not trying to prematurely optimize. My attempts right now are
for the way that I wish to develop.
Speaking to #4 above, it also sucks that I'm not able to type the
relationships between nodes on the graph. Rather, it's not that I _can't_,
but a project to created a typed graph library is beyond the scope of this
work and would take far too much time. I'll leave that to a personal,
non-work project. Instead, I'm going to have to narrow the type any time
the graph is accessed. And while that sucks, I'm going to do my best to
encapsulate those details to make it as seamless as possible API-wise. The
performance hit of performing the narrowing I'm hoping will be very small
relative to all the business logic going on (a single cache miss is bound to
be far more expensive than many narrowings which are just integer
comparisons and branching)...but we'll see. Introducing branching sucks,
but branch prediction is pretty damn good in modern CPUs.
DEV-13160
This finally uses `parse` all the way up to aggregation into the ASG, as can
be seen by the mess in `poc`. This will be further simplified---I just need
to get this committed so that I can mentally get it off my plate. I've been
separating this commit into smaller commits, but there's a point where it's
just not worth the effort anymore. I don't like making large changes such
as this one.
There is still work to do here. First, it's worth re-mentioning that
`poc` means "proof-of-concept", and represents things that still need a
proper home/abstraction.
Secondly, `poc` is retrieving the context of two parsers---`LowerContext`
and `Asg`. The latter is desirable, since it's the final aggregation point,
but the former needs to be eliminated; in particular, packages need to be
worked into the ASG so that `found` can be removed.
Recursively loading `xmlo` files still happens in `poc`, but the compiler
will need this as well. Once packages are on the ASG, along with their
state, that responsibility can be generalized as well.
That will then simplify lowering even further, to the point where hopefully
everything has the same shape (once final aggregation has an abstraction),
after which we can then create a final abstraction to concisely stitch
everything together. Right now, Rust isn't able to infer `S` for
`Lower<S, LS>`, which is unfortunate, but we'll be able to help it along
with a more explicit abstraction.
DEV-11864
This wraps `Ident` in a new `Object` variant and modifies `Asg` so that its
nodes are of type `Object`.
This unfortunately requires runtime type checking. Whether or not that's
worth alleviating in the future depends on a lot of different things, since
it'll require my own graph implementation, and I have to focus on other
things right now. Maybe it'll be worth it in the future.
Note that this also gets rid of some doc examples that simply aren't worth
maintaining as the API evolves.
DEV-11864
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