So far we only checked the ownership of incoming values.
But even if the incoming instruction has no ownership, the argument may have.
This can happen with enums which are constructed with a non-payload case:
%1 = enum $Optional<C>, #Optional.none!enumelt
br bb3(%1)
bb1(%3 : @owned $Optional<C>):
Fixes an ownership verification error:
rdar://142506300
Type annotations for instruction operands are omitted, e.g.
```
%3 = struct $S(%1, %2)
```
Operand types are redundant anyway and were only used for sanity checking in the SIL parser.
But: operand types _are_ printed if the definition of the operand value was not printed yet.
This happens:
* if the block with the definition appears after the block where the operand's instruction is located
* if a block or instruction is printed in isolation, e.g. in a debugger
The old behavior can be restored with `-Xllvm -sil-print-types`.
This option is added to many existing test files which check for operand types in their check-lines.
It is necessary for opaque values where for casts that will newly start
out as checked_cast_brs and be lowered to checked_cast_addr_brs, since
the latter has the source formal type, IRGen relies on being able to
access it, and there's no way in general to obtain the source formal
type from the source lowered type.
SIL type lowering erases DynamicSelfType, so we generate
incorrect code when casting to DynamicSelfType. Fixing this
requires a fair amount of plumbing, but most of the
changes are mechanical.
Note that the textual SIL syntax for casts has changed
slightly; the target type is now a formal type without a '$',
not a SIL type.
Also, the unconditional_checked_cast_value and
checked_cast_value_br instructions now take the _source_
formal type as well, just like the *_addr forms they are
intended to replace.
The reason to do this is that otherwise, retain code motion can increase the
size of the IR by large amounts as it pushes tons and tons of retains/releases
into these sorts of blocks. One one test case, it increased the amount of raw
instructions by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
We used to implement this in ARCSequenceOpts when it did code motion. When code
motion was stripped out of ARCSequenceOpts and ARCCodeMotion was implemented,
this was not implemented for some reason yielding this regression.
NOTE: If one reads this PR there is "retain" trimming code as well as usage of
ProgramTerminationAnalysis. The reason why I implemented the code in this way is
that tThe program termination analysis allows us to avoid inserting retains at
all into fatal error blocks, but it can not handle cases where a fatal error
block has been merged into another block. The trimmer code handles this case and
potential cases where side-effect code is in the fatal error block. On the other
hand, if we just relied on the retain trimming code, we would be inserting a
huge amount of retains just to free them. That is really wasteful from a
performance standpoint given the amount of retains that we can insert here.
rdar://42347024
introduce a common superclass, SILNode.
This is in preparation for allowing instructions to have multiple
results. It is also a somewhat more elegant representation for
instructions that have zero results. Instructions that are known
to have exactly one result inherit from a class, SingleValueInstruction,
that subclasses both ValueBase and SILInstruction. Some care must be
taken when working with SILNode pointers and testing for equality;
please see the comment on SILNode for more information.
A number of SIL passes needed to be updated in order to handle this
new distinction between SIL values and SIL instructions.
Note that the SIL parser is now stricter about not trying to assign
a result value from an instruction (like 'return' or 'strong_retain')
that does not produce any.
The main loop of mandatory inlining is spending a lot of time managing complex
iterator invalidation issues. This is the first in a series of commits that move
the main inlining loop to only delete the callee and to do all cleanups after we
have finished inlining.
This specific optimization (the quick retain/release peephole), I am not going
to do in MandatoryInlining, we already have guaranteed arc opts afterwards that
will be able to hit such a peephole so no perf should be lost.
*NOTE* The reason why I had to touch some of the code motion tests is that the
routine I am using to ensure that strong_retain/release_value is emitted as
appropriate is also used by codemotion. Code motion tests had cargo culted some
code from previous tests that retained Builtin.Int32. I changed the routines
though so that when a retain/release is inserted, if it is trivial, nothing is
inserted. No routine was relying on the actual usage of the inserted
retain/releases, so everything will be safe. This addition to the relevant code
caused me to need to change the tests in code motion to use actual non-trivial
values. The same code paths are being tested in terms of blocking code
motion/etc.
rdar://31521023
Textual SIL was sometimes ambiguous when SILDeclRefs were used, because the textual representation of SILDeclRefs was the same for functions that have the same name, but different signatures.
Textual SIL was sometimes ambiguous when SILDeclRefs were used, because the textual representation of SILDeclRefs was the same for functions that have the same name, but different signatures.
delete it and recreate new one
This is a compilation time improvement
There are a few small modifications to the tests, as we try to create
different, but equivalent retain/release before even though we can reuse
the old ones.
rdar://28329689
replaced by retain release code motion. This code has been disabled for sometime now.
This should bring the retain release code motion into a close. The retain release
code motion pipeline looks like this. There could be some minor cleanups after this though.
1. We perform a global data flow for retain release code motion in RRCM (RetainReleaseCodeMotion)
2. We perform a local form of retain release code motion in SILCodeMotion. This is more
for cases which can not be handled in RRCM. e.g. sinking into a switch is more efficiently
done in a local form, the retain is not needed on the None block. Release on SILArgument needs
to be split to incoming values, this can not be done in RRCM and other cases.
3. We do not perform code motion in ASO, only elimination which are very important.
Some modifications to test cases, they look different, but functionally the same.
RRCM has this canonicalization effect, i.e. it uses the rc root, instead of
the SSA value the retain/release is currently using. As a result some test cases need
to be modified.
I also removed some test cases that do not make sense anymore and lot of duplicate test
cases between earlycodemotion.sil and latecodemotion.sil. These tests cases only have retains
and should be used to test early code motion.
Similarly to how we've always handled parameter types, we
now recursively expand tuples in result types and separately
determine a result convention for each result.
The most important code-generation change here is that
indirect results are now returned separately from each
other and from any direct results. It is generally far
better, when receiving an indirect result, to receive it
as an independent result; the caller is much more likely
to be able to directly receive the result in the address
they want to initialize, rather than having to receive it
in temporary memory and then copy parts of it into the
target.
The most important conceptual change here that clients and
producers of SIL must be aware of is the new distinction
between a SILFunctionType's *parameters* and its *argument
list*. The former is just the formal parameters, derived
purely from the parameter types of the original function;
indirect results are no longer in this list. The latter
includes the indirect result arguments; as always, all
the indirect results strictly precede the parameters.
Apply instructions and entry block arguments follow the
argument list, not the parameter list.
A relatively minor change is that there can now be multiple
direct results, each with its own result convention.
This is a minor change because I've chosen to leave
return instructions as taking a single operand and
apply instructions as producing a single result; when
the type describes multiple results, they are implicitly
bound up in a tuple. It might make sense to split these
up and allow e.g. return instructions to take a list
of operands; however, it's not clear what to do on the
caller side, and this would be a major change that can
be separated out from this already over-large patch.
Unsurprisingly, the most invasive changes here are in
SILGen; this requires substantial reworking of both call
emission and reabstraction. It also proved important
to switch several SILGen operations over to work with
RValue instead of ManagedValue, since otherwise they
would be forced to spuriously "implode" buffers.
Having a separate address and container value returned from alloc_stack is not really needed in SIL.
Even if they differ we have both addresses available during IRGen, because a dealloc_stack is always dominated by the corresponding alloc_stack in the same function.
Although this commit quite large, most changes are trivial. The largest non-trivial change is in IRGenSIL.
This commit is a NFC regarding the generated code. Even the generated SIL is the same (except removed #0, #1 and @local_storage).
Debug variable info may be attached to debug_value, debug_value_addr,
alloc_box, and alloc_stack instructions.
In order to write textual SIL -> SIL testcases that exercise the handling
of debug information by SIL passes, we need to make a couple of additions
to the textual SIL language. In memory, the debug information attached to
SIL instructions references information from the AST. If we want to create
debug info from parsing a textual .sil file, these bits need to be made
explicit.
Performance Notes: This is memory neutral for compilations from Swift
source code, because the variable name is still stored in the AST. For
compilations from textual source the variable name is stored in tail-
allocated memory following the SIL instruction that introduces the
variable.
<rdar://problem/22707128>
