| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
* Add a ASTBuilder to a Module
Only construct on valid ASTBuilder (was being called on nullptr on occassion)
* Add nodes to ASTBuilder.
* Compiles with RefPtr removed from AST node types.
* Initialize all AST node pointer variables in headers to nullptr;
* Initialize AST node variables as nullptr.
Make ASTBuilder keep a ref on node types.
Make SyntaxParseCallback returns a NodeBase
* Don't release canonicalType on dtor (managed by ASTBuilder).
* Give ASTBuilders a name and id, to help in debugging.
For now destroy the session TypeCache, to stop it holding things released when the compile request destroys ASTBuilders.
* Moved the TypeCheckingCache over to Linkage from Session.
* NodeBase no longer derived from RefObject.
* Only add/dtor nodes that need destruction.
First pass compile on linux.
|
|
* First steps toward inheritance for struct types
This change adds the ability for a `struct` type to declare a base type that is another `struct`:
```hlsl
struct Base
{
int baseMember;
}
struct Derived : Base
{
int derivedMember;
}
```
The semantics of the feature are that code like the above desugars into code like:
```hlsl
struct Base
{
int baseMember;
}
struct Derived
{
Base _base;
int derivedMember;
}
```
At points where a member from the base type is being projected out, or the value is being implicitly cast to the base type, the compiler transforms the code to reference the implicitly-generated `_base` member. That means code like this:
```hlsl
void f(Base b);
...
Derived d = ...;
int x = d.baseMember;
f(d);
```
gets transformed into a form like this:
```hlsl
void f(Base b);
...
Derived d = ...;
int x = d._base.baseMember;
f(d._base);
```
Note that as a result of this choice, the behavior when passing a `Derived` value to a function that expects a `Base` (including to inherited member functions) is that of "object shearing" from the C++ world: the called function can only "see" the `Base` part of the argument, and any operations performed on it will behave as if the value was indeed a `Base`. There is no polymorphism going on because Slang doesn't currently have `virtual` methods.
In an attempt to work toward inheritance being a robust feature, this change adds a bunch of more detailed logic for checking the bases of various declarations:
* An `interface` declaration is only allowed to inherit from other `interface`s
* An `extension` declaration can only introduce inheritance from `interface`s
* A `struct` declaration can only inherit from at most one other `struct`, and that `struct` must be the first entry in the list of bases
This change also adds a mechanism to control whether a `struct` or `interface` in one module can inherit from a `struct` or `interface` declared in another module:
* If the base declaration is marked `[open]`, then the inheritance is allowed
* If the base declaration is marked `[sealed]`, then the inheritance is allowed
* If it is not marked otherwise, a `struct` is implicitly `[sealed]`
* If it is not marked otherwise, an `interface` is implicitly `[open]`
These seem like reasonable defaults. In order to safeguard the standard library a bit, the interfaces for builtin types have been marked `[sealed]` to make sure that a user cannot declare a `struct` and then mark it as a `BuiltinFloatingPointType`. This step should bring us a bit closer to being able to document and expose these interfaces for built-in types so that users can write code that is generic over them.
There are some big caveats with this work, such that it really only represents a stepping-stone toward a usable inheritance feature. The most important caveats are:
* If a `Derived` type tries to conform to an interface, such that one or more interface requirements are satisfied with members inherited from the `Base` type, that is likely to cause a crash or incorrect code generation.
* If a `Derived` type tries to inherit from a `Base` type that conforms to one or more interfaces, the witness table generated for the conformance of `Derived` to that interface is likely to lead to a crash or incorrect code generation.
It is clear that solving both of those issues will be necessary before we can really promote `struct` inheritance as a feature for users to try out.
* fixup: trying to appease clang error
* fixups: review feedback
|
|
* Small improvements to documentation and code around DiagnosticSink
* Made methods/functions in slang-syntax.h be lowerCamel
Removed some commented out source (was placed elsewhere in code)
* Making AST related methods and function lowerCamel.
Made IsLeftValue -> isLeftValue.
|
|
* Compiles.
* Small tidy up around session/ASTBuilder.
* Tests are now passing.
* Fix Visual Studio project.
* Fix using new X to use builder when protectedness of Ctor is not enough.
Substitute->substitute
* Add some missing ast nodes created outside of ASTBuilder.
* Compile time check that ASTBuilder is making an AST type.
* Moced findClasInfo and findSyntaxClass (essentially the same thing) to SharedASTBuilder from Session.
|
|
* Fields from upper to lower case in slang-ast-decl.h
* Lower camel field names in slang-ast-stmt.h
* Fix fields in slang-ast-expr.h
* slang-ast-type.h make fields lowerCamel.
* slang-ast-base.h members functions lowerCamel.
* Method names in slang-ast-type.h to lowerCamel.
* GetCanonicalType -> getCanonicalType
* Substitute -> substitute
* Equals -> equals
ToString -> toString
* ParentDecl -> parentDecl
Members -> members
|
|
The semantic checking logic was all inside `slang-check.cpp` and as a result this was a monster file that was extremely hard to follow. This change splits `slang-check.cpp` into several smaller files, although some of the resulting files are still quite large.
This change attempts to be a copy-paste job as much as possible and does *not* perform any cleanup on naming, structure, duplication, etc. in the code it deal with. No function bodies or signatures have been touched.
|
