A modern programming language that makes developers happier.

kotlinlang

What are the plans for `IrIntrinsicExtension` on other platforms - maybe an issue tracking it? Curious since I would like to implement an intrinsic, but information on this is sparse. It's also kind of disappointing that it has to be done in a platform-specific way, but understandable. Or more generally - is there any other way, current or planned, to implement an intrinsic for a function after inlining (in order to preserve the reified type)?

<@U6647LJ30> Since I discovered this from <https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin/commit/69c00785f28992709dd734e546e8c28cca7f4c52|your change>; any chance you know what the plans in the compiler are for this sort of thing? I'm noticing that other plugin authors - such as <https://github.com/cashapp/zipline/blob/695d7bed251421bf20cd0f8031b52df5b8c1b1ee/zipline-kotlin-plugin/src/main/kotlin/app/cash/zipline/kotlin/ZiplineIrGenerationExtension.kt#L72-L85|here> + <https://github.com/cashapp/zipline/blob/695d7bed251421bf20cd0f8031b52df5b8c1b1ee/zipline-kotlin-plugin/src/main/kotlin/app/cash/zipline/kotlin/AddAdapterArgumentRewriter.kt#L61-L62|here> in Zipline - are simply replacing `IrCall`, which unfortunately seems kind of limiting.

Currently there's no such plans to introduce intrinsics for other platforms; as you can see, intrinsics on JVM are forced to emit bytecode, therefore they remain highly platform-specific. I'd recommend to take approach of a regular compiler plugin and manipulate IR tree, unless you absolutely have to see the result of an inlining.

Thanks! That's too bad - it leaves a bit of a wart on APIs (like the one I linked above) that prevents adding additional abstractions over function implementations generated through that kind of IR replacement. For example if I wanted to intrinsify `fun &lt;T&gt; generateSomeIntrospection()`, I couldn't also build upon that in a `inline fun &lt;reified T&gt; ServiceProvider.get(): T` in upstream library code that could itself call `generateSomeIntrospection&lt;T&gt;()` without also intrisifying `get`.

Such a feature could really open up some doors for plugin authors, I think. Do you think it's worth filing an FR in YouTrack for it?