Before deleting a load, simply rewrite its debug info to refer to the
loaded address:
%l = load %a
debug_value %l, loc0, scope0, var0
--->
debug_value %a, loc0, scope0, var0, expr op_deref
%l = load %a
Note that alloc_stack addresses do not require the addition of
op_deref because they are already special-cased in IRGen.
This will be called from salvageDebugInfo when it is supported by
optmizations. Until then, it is only called selectively at -Onone.
SROA and Mem2Reg now can leverage DIExpression -- op_fragment, more
specifically -- to generate correct debug info for optimized SIL. Some
important highlights:
- The new swift::salvageDebugInfo, similar to llvm::salvageDebugInfo,
tries to restore / transfer debug info from a deleted instruction.
Currently I only implemented this for store instruction whose
destination is an alloc_stack value.
- Since we now have source-variable-specific SIL location inside a
`debug_value` instruction (and its friends), this patch teaches
SILCloner and SILInliner to remap the debug scope there in addition
to debug scope of the instruction.
- DCE now does not remove `debug_value` instruction whose associating
with a function argument SSA value that is not used elsewhere. Since
that SSA value will not disappear so we should keep the debug info.
I recently have been running into the issue that many of these APIs perform the
deletion operation themselves and notify the caller it is going to delete
instead of allowing the caller to specify how the instruction is deleted. This
causes interesting semantic issues (see the loop in deleteInstruction I
simplified) and breaks composition since many parts of the optimizer use
InstModCallbacks for this purpose.
To fix this, I added a notify will be deleted construct to InstModCallback. In a
similar way to the rest of it, if the notify is not set, we do not call any code
implying that we should have good predictable performance in loops since we will
always skip the function call.
I also changed InstModCallback::deleteInst() to notify before deleting so we
have a default safe behavior. All previous use sites of this API do not care
about being notified and the only new use sites of this API are in
InstructionDeleter that perform special notification behavior (it notifies for
certain sets of instructions it is going to delete before it deletes any of
them). To work around this, I added a bool to deleteInst to control this
behavior and defaulted to notifying. This should ensure that all other use sites
still compose correctly.
There are a bunch of optimizations in SILCombine where we try to fold an
ownership forwarding instruction A into another ownership forwarding instruction
B without deleting A. Consider the upcasts in the example below:
```
%0 = upcast %x : $X->Y
%1 = upcast %0 : $Y->Z
```
These sorts of optimizations fold the first instruction into the second like so:
```
%0 = upcast %x : $X->Y
%1 = upcast %x : $X->Z
```
This creates a problem when we are dealing with owned values since we have just
introduced two consumes for %x. To work around this, we have two options:
1. Introduce extra copies.
2. We recognize the situations where we can guarantee that we can delete the
first upcast.
The first choice I believe is not a choice since breaking a forwarding chain of
ownership in favor of extra copies is a less canonical form. That leaves us with
the second form. What are the necessary/sufficient conditions for deleting the
first upcast. Simply it is that the upcast cannot have any non-debug,
non-consuming uses! In such a case, we know that along all paths through the
program the value has exactly one non-debug use, one of its consuming uses. If
when optimizing upcasts we could recognize that pattern, duplicate the inst
along paths not through our 2nd upcast and thus delete the original upcast
fixing the ownership error!
While this is all nice and good there is a problem with this: it doesn't
scale. As I was writing a few optimizations like this I began to note that I had
to write different versions of this same helper for many of the visitors (they
generally varied by how many forwarding instructions they looked through).
As I pondered the above, I chatted a bit with @atrick and during our
conversation, we both realized that it is much easier to solve this problem in
one block and that the condition above would allow us to sink these instructiosn
into the same block and thus if we could check for this condition and
canonicialize the IR to sink these instructions before we visiting, we could use
a single helper to handle all of these cases.
