The major important thing here is that by using copy_unowned_value we can
guarantee that the non-ownership SIL ARC optimizer will treat the release
associated with the strong_retain_unowned as on a distinc rc-identity from its
argument. As an example of this problem consider the following SILGen like
output:
----
%1 = copy_value %0 : $Builtin.NativeObject
%2 = ref_to_unowned %1
%3 = copy_unowned_value %2
destroy_value %1
...
destroy_value %3
----
In this case, we are converting a strong reference to an unowned value and then
lifetime extending the value past the original value. After eliminating
ownership this lowers to:
----
strong_retain %0 : $Builtin.NativeObject
%1 = ref_to_unowned %0
strong_retain_unowned %1
strong_release %0
...
strong_release %0
----
From an RC identity perspective, we have now blurred the lines in between %3 and
%1 in the previous example. This can then result in the following miscompile:
----
%1 = ref_to_unowned %0
strong_retain_unowned %1
...
strong_release %0
----
In this case, it is possible that we created a lifetime gap that will then cause
strong_retain_unowned to assert. By not lowering copy_unowned_value throughout
the SIL pipeline, we instead get this after lowering:
----
strong_retain %0 : $Builtin.NativeObject
%1 = ref_to_unowned %0
%2 = copy_unowned_value %1
strong_release %0
...
strong_release %2
----
And we do not miscompile since we preserved the high level rc identity
pairing.
There shouldn't be any performance impact since we do not really optimize
strong_retain_unowned at the SIL level. I went through all of the places that
strong_retain_unowned was referenced and added appropriate handling for
copy_unowned_value.
rdar://41328987
**NOTE** I am going to remove strong_retain_unowned in a forthcoming commit. I
just want something more minimal for cherry-picking purposes.
Make this a generic analysis so that it can be used to analyze any
kind of function effect.
FunctionSideEffect becomes a trivial specialization of the analysis.
The immediate need for this is to introduce an new
AccessedStorageAnalysis, although I foresee it as a generally very
useful utility. This way, new kinds of function effects can be
computed without adding any complexity or compile time to
FunctionSideEffects. We have the flexibility of computing different
kinds of function effects at different points in the pipeline.
In the case of AccessedStorageAnalysis, it will compute both
FunctionSideEffects and FunctionAccessedStorage in the same pass by
implementing a simple wrapper on top of FunctionEffects.
This cleanup reflects my feeling that nested classes make the code
extremely unreadable unless they are very small and either private or
only used directly via its parent class. It's easier to see how these
classes compose with a flat type system.
In addition to enabling new kinds of function effects analyses, I
think this makes the implementation of side effect analysis easier to
understand by separating concerns.
The EscapeAnalysis:canEscapeTo function was actually broken, because it did not detect all escapes of a reference/pointer.
I completely replaced the implementation with the correct one (canObjectOrContentEscapeTo) and removed the now obsolete canObjectOrContentEscapeTo.
Fixes a miscompile.
rdar://problem/39161309
* Reduce array abstraction on apple platforms dealing with literals
Part of the ongoing quest to reduce swift array literal abstraction
penalties: make the SIL optimizer able to eliminate bridging overhead
when dealing with array literals.
Introduce a new classify_bridge_object SIL instruction to handle the
logic of extracting platform specific bits from a Builtin.BridgeObject
value that indicate whether it contains a ObjC tagged pointer object,
or a normal ObjC object. This allows the SIL optimizer to eliminate
these, which allows constant folding a ton of code. On the example
added to test/SILOptimizer/static_arrays.swift, this results in 4x
less SIL code, and also leads to a lot more commonality between linux
and apple platform codegen when passing an array literal.
This also introduces a couple of SIL combines for patterns that occur
in the array literal passing case.
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.
As there are no instructions left which produce multiple result values, this is a NFC regarding the generated SIL and generated code.
Although this commit is large, most changes are straightforward adoptions to the changes in the ValueBase and SILValue classes.
If we use a shared valueenumerator, imagine the case when one of the AAcache or MBcache
is cleared and we clear the valueenumerator.
This could give rise to collisions (false positives) in the not-yet-cleared cache!
(libraries now)
It has been generally agreed that we need to do this reorg, and now
seems like the perfect time. Some major pass reorganization is in the
works.
This does not have to be the final word on the matter. The consensus
among those working on the code is that it's much better than what we
had and a better starting point for future bike shedding.
Note that the previous organization was designed to allow separate
analysis and optimization libraries. It turns out this is an
artificial distinction and not an important goal.
