* Sema: allow binary operations and boolean not on vectors of bool
* langref: Clarify use of operators on vectors (`and` and `or` not allowed)
closes#24093
This commit reworks how Sema handles arithmetic on comptime-known
values, fixing many bugs in the process.
The general pattern is that arithmetic on comptime-known values is now
handled by the new namespace `Sema.arith`. Functions handling comptime
arithmetic no longer live on `Value`; this is because some of them can
emit compile errors, so some *can't* go on `Value`. Only semantic
analysis should really be doing arithmetic on `Value`s anyway, so it
makes sense for it to integrate more tightly with `Sema`.
This commit also implements more coherent rules surrounding how
`undefined` interacts with comptime and mixed-comptime-runtime
arithmetic. The rules are as follows.
* If an operation cannot trigger Illegal Behavior, and any operand is
`undefined`, the result is `undefined`. This includes operations like
`0 *| undef`, where the LHS logically *could* be used to determine a
defined result. This is partly to simplify the language, but mostly to
permit codegen backends to represent `undefined` values as completely
invalid states.
* If an operation *can* trigger Illegal Behvaior, and any operand is
`undefined`, then Illegal Behavior results. This occurs even if the
operand in question isn't the one that "decides" illegal behavior; for
instance, `undef / 1` is undefined. This is for the same reasons as
described above.
* An operation which would trigger Illegal Behavior, when evaluated at
comptime, instead triggers a compile error. Additionally, if one
operand is comptime-known undef, such that the other (runtime-known)
operand isn't needed to determine that Illegal Behavior would occur,
the compile error is triggered.
* The only situation in which an operation with one comptime-known
operand has a comptime-known result is if that operand is undefined,
in which case the result is either undefined or a compile error per
the above rules. This could potentially be loosened in future (for
instance, `0 * rt` could be comptime-known 0 with a runtime assertion
that `rt` is not undefined), but at least for now, defining it more
conservatively simplifies the language and allows us to easily change
this in future if desired.
This commit fixes many bugs regarding the handling of `undefined`,
particularly in vectors. Along with a collection of smaller tests, two
very large test cases are added to check arithmetic on `undefined`.
The operations which have been rewritten in this PR are:
* `+`, `+%`, `+|`, `@addWithOverflow`
* `-`, `-%`, `-|`, `@subWithOverflow`
* `*`, `*%`, `*|`, `@mulWithOverflow`
* `/`, `@divFloor`, `@divTrunc`, `@divExact`
* `%`, `@rem`, `@mod`
Other arithmetic operations are currently unchanged.
Resolves: #22743Resolves: #22745Resolves: #22748Resolves: #22749Resolves: #22914
The old isARM() function was a portability trap. With the name it had, it seemed
like the obviously correct function to use, but it didn't include Thumb. In the
vast majority of cases where someone wants to ask "is the target Arm?", Thumb
*should* be included.
There are exactly 3 cases in the codebase where we do actually need to exclude
Thumb, although one of those is in Aro and mirrors a check in Clang that is
itself likely a bug. These rare cases can just add an extra isThumb() check.
The compiler actually doesn't need any functional changes for this: Sema
does reification based on the tag indices of `std.builtin.Type` already!
So, no zig1.wasm update is necessary.
This change is necessary to disallow name clashes between fields and
decls on a type, which is a prerequisite of #9938.
This is a misfeature that we inherited from LLVM:
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D61259
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D61939
(`aarch64_32` and `arm64_32` are equivalent.)
I truly have no idea why this triple passed review in LLVM. It is, to date, the
*only* tag in the architecture component that is not, in fact, an architecture.
In reality, it is just an ILP32 ABI for AArch64 (*not* AArch32).
The triples that use `aarch64_32` look like `aarch64_32-apple-watchos`. Yes,
that triple is exactly what you think; it has no ABI component. They really,
seriously did this.
Since only Apple could come up with silliness like this, it should come as no
surprise that no one else uses `aarch64_32`. Later on, a GNU ILP32 ABI for
AArch64 was developed, and support was added to LLVM:
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D94143
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D104931
Here, sanity seems to have prevailed, and a triple using this ABI looks like
`aarch64-linux-gnu_ilp32` as you would expect.
As can be seen from the diffs in this commit, there was plenty of confusion
throughout the Zig codebase about what exactly `aarch64_32` was. So let's just
remove it. In its place, we'll use `aarch64-watchos-ilp32`,
`aarch64-linux-gnuilp32`, and so on. We'll then translate these appropriately
when talking to LLVM. Hence, this commit adds the `ilp32` ABI tag (we already
have `gnuilp32`).
