* Teach findAccessedStorage about global addressors.
AccessedStorage now properly represents access to global variables, even if they
haven't been fully optimized down to global_addr instructions.
This is essential for optimizing dynamic exclusivity checks. As a
verified SIL property, all access to globals and class properties
needs to be identifiable.
* Add stronger SILVerifier support for formal access.
Ensure that all formal access follows recognizable patterns
at all points in the SIL pipeline.
This is important to run acccess enforcement optimization late in the pipeline.
The compile-time exclusivity diagnostics explicitly allow conflicting accesses
to a struct when it can prove that the two accesses are used to project addresses
for separate stored properties. Unfortunately, the logic that detects this special
case gets confused by Thread Sanitizer's SIL-level instrumentation. This causes
the exclusivity diagnostics to have false positives when TSan is enabled.
To fix this, teach the AccessSummaryAnalysis to ignore TSan builtins when
determining whether an access has a single projected subpath.
rdar://problem/40455335
The pattern we see for noescape closure passed to objective c is different:
There is the additional without actually escaping closure sentinel.
rdar://39682865
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 etymology of these terms isn't about race, but "black" = "blocked"
and "white" = "allowed" isn't really a good look these days. In most
cases we weren't using these terms particularly precisely anyway, so
the rephrasing is actually an improvement.
Make the static enforcement of accesses in noescape closures stored-property
sensitive. This will relax the existing enforcement so that the following is
not diagnosed:
struct MyStruct {
var x = X()
var y = Y()
mutating
func foo() {
x.mutatesAndTakesClosure() {
_ = y.read() // no-warning
}
}
}
To do this, update the access summary analysis to summarize accesses to
subpaths of a capture.
rdar://problem/32987932
Make the static enforcement of accesses in noescape closures stored-property
sensitive. This will relax the existing enforcement so that the following is
not diagnosed:
struct MyStruct {
var x = X()
var y = Y()
mutating
func foo() {
x.mutatesAndTakesClosure() {
_ = y.read()
}
}
}
To do this, update the access summary analysis to be stored-property sensitive.
rdar://problem/32987932
I’m totally disabling this assert in 4.0. Tracking down a compiler crash for
each obscure case of missing access marker is not a good use of time since we’re
not actually fixing these cases when we find them anyway. Instead, post 4.0, we
will catch all of these missing cases by implementing strong SIL
verification. Much more SILGen work is really required to fully implement
exclusivity diagnostics. SIL verification will be necessary to drive that.
Fixes <rdar://problem/33024357> AccessSummaryAnalysis assert "Unrecognized
argument use" building source compatibility siesta project.
Mark Lacey caught this bug in the assertion logic that looks for expected SIL
patterns involving non-escaping closures. I broadened it to allow multiple use,
but it was only verifying the first use. This is NFC w.r.t. our automated
testing because that never hits the multiple-use case.
This is a same-day fix for a typo introduced here:
commit c2c55eea12
Author: Andrew Trick <atrick@apple.com>
Date: Wed Jun 21 16:08:06 2017
AccessSummaryAnalysis: handle @convention(block) in nested nonescape closures.
This analysis has a whitelist to ensure that we aren't missing any SIL
patterns and failing to enforce some cases.
There is a special case involving nested non-escaping closures being passed as a
block argument. Whitelist this very special case even though we don't enforce
it because the corresponding diagnostics pass also doesn't enforce it.
Use the AccessSummaryAnalysis to statically enforce exclusive access for
noescape closures passed as arguments to functions.
We will now diagnose when a function is passed a noescape closure that begins
an access on capture when that same capture already has a conflicting access
in progress at the time the function is applied.
The interprocedural analysis is not yet stored-property sensitive (unlike the
intraprocedural analysis), so this will report violations on accesses to
separate stored properties of the same struct.
rdar://problem/32020710
IndexTrie is a more light-weight representation and it works well in this case.
This requires recovering the represented sequence from an IndexTrieNode, so
also add a getParent() method.
Add an interprocedural SIL analysis pass that summarizes the accesses that
closures make on their @inout_aliasable captures. This will be used to
statically enforce exclusivity for calls to functions that take noescape
closures.
The analysis summarizes the accesses on each argument independently and
uses the BottomUpIPAnalysis utility class to iterate to a fixed point when
there are cycles in the call graph.
For now, the analysis is not stored-property-sensitive -- that will come in a
later commit.
