* When storing a zero-bit type, we should short-circuit almost
immediately. Zero-bit stores do not need to do any work.
* The bit size computation for arrays is incorrect; the `abiSize` will
already be appropriately aligned, but the logic to do so here
incorrectly assumes that zero-bit types have an alignment of 0. They
don't; their alignment is 1.
Resolves: #21202Resolves: #21508Resolves: #23307
* Indexing zero-bit types should not produce AIR indexing instructions
* Getting a runtime-known element pointer from a many-pointer should
check that the many-pointer is not comptime-only
Resolves: #23405
This is actually completely well-defined. The resulting slice always has
0 elements. The only disallowed case is casting *to* a slice of a
zero-bit type, because in that case, you cna't figure out how many
destination elements to use (and there's *no* valid destination length
if the source slice corresponds to more than 0 bits).
While it is not allowed for a function coercion to change whether a
function is generic, it *is* okay to make existing concrete parameters
of a generic function also generic, or vice versa. Either of these cases
implies that the result is a generic function, so comptime type checks
will happen when the function is ultimately called.
Resolves: #21099
Simliarly to shl_with_overflow, we first SHL/SAL the integer, then
SHR/SAR it back to compare if overflow happens.
If overflow happened, set result to the upper limit to make it saturating.
Bug: #17645
Co-authored-by: Jacob Young <jacobly0@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Bingwu Zhang <xtex@aosc.io>
Updated solution is future proof for arbitary size integer handling for both strategies .br_table lowering if switch case is dense, .br_if base jump table if values are too sparse.
Functions like isMinGW() and isGnuLibC() have a good reason to exist: They look
at multiple components of the target. But functions like isWasm(), isDarwin(),
isGnu(), etc only exist to save 4-8 characters. I don't think this is a good
enough reason to keep them, especially given that:
* It's not immediately obvious to a reader whether target.isDarwin() means the
same thing as target.os.tag.isDarwin() precisely because isMinGW() and similar
functions *do* look at multiple components.
* It's not clear where we would draw the line. The logical conclusion before
this commit would be to also wrap Arch.isX86(), Os.Tag.isSolarish(),
Abi.isOpenHarmony(), etc... this obviously quickly gets out of hand.
* It's nice to just have a single correct way of doing something.
