You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Add a vtableDecl inst and use that in classes instead of VtablePtr (#5945)
This addresses/avoids the duplicate import of vtables.
I went through a few iterations/etc along the way and left them in the
commit
history for the PR in case any of them are useful to illustrate how I
got here,
or worth revisiting.
Essentially I ended up with a circularity in importing - importing the
class
imported the vtable_decl which imported the virtual functions - and then
pending
specifics of the virtual functions needed the self specific of the
enclosing
class which wasn't ready yet.
Adding ImportRef to the vtable_decl to break the cycle caused me trouble
when
naming the vtable_decl instructions - so I tried making the functions in
the
vtable unloaded ImportRefs instead. That worked, but meant that
importing a
class still was doing O(number of vtable entries) even if the vtable
wasn't
used.
So I revisited the lazy vtable_decl - figured out how to make the naming
work
(when building the vtable_ptr, even though the vtable_decl doesn't have
to be
loaded for the vtable_ptr, I force it to be loaded anyway, to load the
vtable so
it's usable by lowering, etc). And then I could go back to the old
non-lazy
loaded vtable entries (using some loaded ImportRefs in the cases where
we needed
them/had already adopted them).
Then thinking about the VtablePtr instruction, went back/forth on
exactly what
it needed - went from VtablePtr's member being a VtableDecl InstId, to a
ClassId, then back to a VtableId as it was before this patch.
Naming the instructions has one oddity, that the VtableDecl and
VtablePtr
instructions seem to need to add the pending name for the VtableId -
despite not
using the VtableId in their own name - should the inst namer be doing
this work
for parameters of instructions rather than requiring the inst to do it
deliberately? (or am I holding it wrong in some way?)
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <[email protected]>
0 commit comments