If a lambda set is non-recursive, but contains naked recursion pointers,
we should not fill those naked pointers in with the slot of the lambda
set during interning. Such naked pointers must belong to an encompassing
lambda set that is in fact recursive, and will be filled in later.
For example, `LambdaSet([Foo, LambdaSet(Bar, [<rec>])] as <rec>)` should
not have the inner lambda set's capture be filled in with itself.
Also, during reification of recursion pointers, we do not need to
traverse re-inserted lambda sets again, since they were just fixed-up.
Closes#5026
This change also means we must update the interface of `Dict.empty` and
`Set.empty` from
```
Dict.empty : Dict k v
```
to
```
Dict.empty : {} -> Dict k v
```
The nullable ID always has zero tags. For everything else, we should
just match with the arity of the number of arguments, which doesn't
include the tag ID.
Previously, if the lambda set passed to a HOLL contained any function
that captured, we would assume that the specialization of the HOLL we
should make for each function in the lambda set that we dispatch to
should capture.
This is not right. Instead, we should specialize for each lambda in the
set passed to the HOLL. The present patch enforces that, making sure
that for each lambda in the set, we compute the exact proc layout needed
to call the lambda, based on the captures of the specific lambda in the
set, rather than looking at the set entirely.
Some of the head-constructor tests we generate can be supersets of other tests.
Edges must be ordered so that more general tests always happen after their
specialized variants.
For example, patterns
[1, ..] -> ...
[2, 1, ..] -> ...
may generate the edges
ListLen(>=1) -> <rest>
ListLen(>=2) -> <rest>
but evaluated in exactly this order, the second edge is never reachable.
The necessary ordering is
ListLen(>=2) -> <rest>
ListLen(>=1) -> <rest>
Closes#4732
Now that mono does not store expect lookup layouts, the layout cache
should be primed only when specializing the condition of an expect, and
so #4749 is resolved.
Closes#4749
When we transform a top-level expect into an inline expect, we collect
all intermediate defs before the expect condition, then layer the defs
back on. Because the layering procedure builds an expression bottom-up,
we must layer on defs in reverse definition order.
Closes#4705
In #3352 an optimization to transform `ra = .field` into
```
ra = \#rcd -[ra]-> #rcd.field
```
rather than
```
__ra1 = \#rcd -[__ra1] -> #rcd.field
ra = LambdaSet { __ra1 }
```
was introduced. However, this optimization is not correct when `ra =
.field` is defined as a toplevel thunk, for in such situations we
indeed want the thunk `ra` to return the lambda set it resolves to,
rather than repointing at itself.
Besides reverting this change, another option would be to convert
accessors into closures before translation of Can to IR. However, this
complicates the translation algorithm more than it already is, and I'd
like to avoid additional special-cases.
Closes#4606
Previously, a program like
```
main =
f =
n = 1
\{} -[#lam]-> n # suppose lambda set = #lam
f {}
```
would be transformed to
```
main =
n = 1
f = \{} -[#lam]-> n
f {}
```
However, the IR lowering procedure is such that we would then associate
`f` as definining the procedure given the lambda set `#lam`. This is not
correct, as `f` is really a function pointer in this circumstance,
rather than the definer of `#lam`.
Instead, the transformation we want to perform is
```
main =
n = 1
#lam = \{} -[#lam]-> n
f = #lam
f {}
```
Which is what this patch does
Closes#2403
