The main idea is the following: since we need to generate
(fake)continuations before inlining, we move IrClasses of suspend
lambdas and continuation classes of named functions into the functions.
Thus, it allows the codegen to generate them prior to inlining and
the inliner will happily transform them for us.
Because of that, lowerings which transform call-site function are likely
to change reference to lowered suspend lambdas or functions.
Hence, do not rely on references to lowered suspend lambdas or
functions, instead, rely on attributes.
Do not generate continuation for inline suspend lambdas.
Previously, inline suspend lambdas were treated like suspend functions,
thus we generated continuations for them. Now we just do not treat them
as suspend functions or lambdas during AddContinuationLowering.
We should add continuation parameter to them, however.
Do not generate secondary constructor for suspend lambdas, otherwise,
the inliner is unable to transform them (it requires only one
constructor to be present).
Generate continuation classes for suspend functions as first statement
inside the function.
This enables suspend functions in local object inside inline functions.
Since we already have attributes inside suspend named functions, we
just reuse them to generate continuation class names. This allows us
to close the gap between code generated by old back-end and the new
one.
If a suspend named function captures crossinline lambda, we should
generate a template for inliner: a copy of the function without
state-machine and a continuation constructor call. The call is needed
so the inliner transforms the continuation as well.
Refactor CoroutineTransformerMethodVisitor, so it no longer depends on
PSI.
Previously it was linear scan, failing on unbalanced suspension markers.
Now, I use CFG to find end markers, which are reachable from start
markers. Using CFG allows to walk through suspension point instructions
only, since they form region.
If, for some reason, end marker does not exist (inliner or unreachable
code elimination pass remove unreachable code) or is unreachable,
just ignore the whole suspension point, as before.
#KT-33172 Fixed
#KT-28507 Fixed
if they are not inlined, but directly called.
Previously, all inline and crossinline lambda calls were treated by
codegen as if they are always going to be inlined. However, this is not
always the case.
Note, that we cannot generate these markers during codegen, since we
can inline code with no suspension points, but the whole inlined code
will become one giant suspension point. This, of course, breaks
tail-call optimization and, hence, slows down cold streams.
Because of that, we generate these markers, when we are sure, that they
are not going to be inlined. The only place, in which we know that, is
the inliner. During inlining of the inline function, we check, whether
the parameter is inline or crossinline and whether it is not an inline
lambda. If these checks pass, we generate the markers. Noinline
parameters are already covered by the codegen.
#KT-30706 Fixed
#KT-26925 Fixed
#KT-26418 Fixed
Introduce COMMON_COROUTINES_TEST directive.
Every test with this directive is run twice: one time with
language version 1.2 and kotlin.coroutines.experimental package
and the other time with language version 1.3 and kotlin.coroutines
package. Each run is a separate method: with suffixes _1_2 and _1_3
respectively.
However, since codegen of release coroutines is not supported in JS
backend, we generate only one method: with suffix _1_2.
#KT-23362
Use fake continuation instead of ALOAD 0 while inlining
Do not generate state machine for inner lambdas and inner objects,
which capture crossinline suspend lambda.
#KT-19159: Fixed
pyos