This is a really weird module. For example, what does `tcx` in
`rustc_middle::mir::tcx::PlaceTy` mean? The answer is "not much".
The top-level module comment says:
> Methods for the various MIR types. These are intended for use after
> building is complete.
Awfully broad for a module that has a handful of impl blocks for some
MIR types, none of which really relates to `TyCtxt`. `git blame`
indicates the comment is ancient, from 2015, and made sense then.
This module is now vestigial. This commit removes it and moves all the
code within into `rustc_middle::mir::statement`. Some specifics:
- `Place`, `PlaceRef`, `Rvalue`, `Operand`, `BorrowKind`: they all have `impl`
blocks in both the `tcx` and `statement` modules. The commit merges
the former into the latter.
- `BinOp`, `UnOp`: they only have `impl` blocks in `tcx`. The commit
moves these into `statement`.
- `PlaceTy`, `RvalueInitializationState`: they are defined in `tcx`.
This commit moves them into `statement` *and* makes them available in
`mir::*`, like many other MIR types.
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
They represent a lot of abstraction and indirection, but they're only
used for `ConstAnalysis`, and apparently won't be used for any other
analyses in the future. This commit inlines and removes them, which
makes `ConstAnalysis` easier to read and understand.
The initial naming of "Abi" was an awful mistake, conveying wrong ideas
about how psABIs worked and even more about what the enum meant.
It was only meant to represent the way the value would be described to
a codegen backend as it was lowered to that intermediate representation.
It was never meant to mean anything about the actual psABI handling!
The conflation is because LLVM typically will associate a certain form
with a certain ABI, but even that does not hold when the special cases
that actually exist arise, plus the IR annotations that modify the ABI.
Reframe `rustc_abi::Abi` as the `BackendRepr` of the type, and rename
`BackendRepr::Aggregate` as `BackendRepr::Memory`. Unfortunately, due to
the persistent misunderstandings, this too is now incorrect:
- Scattered ABI-relevant code is entangled with BackendRepr
- We do not always pre-compute a correct BackendRepr that reflects how
we "actually" want this value to be handled, so we leave the backend
interface to also inject various special-cases here
- In some cases `BackendRepr::Memory` is a "real" aggregate, but in
others it is in fact using memory, and in some cases it is a scalar!
Our rustc-to-backend lowering code handles this sort of thing right now.
That will eventually be addressed by lifting duplicated lowering code
to either rustc_codegen_ssa or rustc_target as appropriate.
Depend on rustc_abi in compiler crates that use it indirectly but have
not yet taken on that dependency, and are not entangled in my other PRs.
This leaves an "excise rustc_target" step after the dust settles.
