While I still hate ".=", at least it's more hidden, and the new
implementation is a fair bit cleaner (hah, goto a label in an if (0) {}
block).
Most importantly, the expression tree code knows nothing about it. Now
just to figure out what broke func-epxr. A bit of whack-a-mole, but yay
for automated tests.
Doing it in the expression trees was a big mistake for a several
reasons. For one, expression trees are meant to be target-agnostic, so
they're the wrong place for selecting instruction types. Also, the move
and memset expressions broke "a = b = c;" type expression chains.
This fixes most things (including the assignchain test) with -Werror
turned off (some issues in flow analysis uncovered by the nil
migration: memset target not extracted).
Now convert_nil only assigns the nil expression a type, and nil makes
its way down to the statement emission code (where it belongs, really).
Breaks even more things :)
The memset instructions now match the move* instructions other than the
first operand (always int). Probably breaks much, but fixed in next few
commits.
This bug drove me nuts for several hours until I figured out what was
going on.
The assignment sub-tree is being generated, then lost. It works for
simple assignments because a = b = c -> (= a (= b c)), but for complex
assignments (those that require move or memset), a = b = c -> (b = c) (a
= c) but nothing points to (b = c). The cause is using binary
expressions to store assignments.
It's not possible to take the address of constants (at this stage) and
trying to use a move instruction with .zero as source would result in
the VM complaining about null pointer access when bounds checking is on.
Thus, don't convert a nil source expression until it is known to be
safe, and use memset when it is not.
This fixes the problem of using the return value of a function as an
element in a compound initializer. The cause of the problem is that
compound initializers were represented by block expressions, but
function calls are contained within block expressions, so def
initialization saw the block expression and thought it was a nested
compound initializer.
Technically, it was a bug in the nested element parsing code in that it
wasn't checking the result value of the block expression, but using a
whole new expression type makes things much cleaner and the work done
paves the way for labeled initializers and compound assignments.
