Actually: generate the array of (key, value) tuples in the data section, which is then passed to Dictionary.init(dictionaryLiteral:)
We already do this for simple arrays, e.g. arrays with trivial element types.
The only change needed for dictionary literals is to support tuple types in the ObjectOutliner.
The effect of this optimization is a significant reduction in code size for dictionary literals - and an increase in data size.
But in most cases there is a considerable net win for code+data size in total.
To do so this commit does a few different things:
1. I changed SILOptFunctionBuilder to notify the pass manager's logging
functionality when new functions are added to the module and to notify analyses
as well. NOTE: This on purpose does not put the new function on the pass manager
worklist since we do not want to by mistake introduce a large amount of
re-optimizations. Such a thing should be explicit.
2. I eliminated SILModuleTransform::notifyAddFunction. This just performed the
operations from 1. Now that SILOptFunctionBuilder performs this operation for
us, it is not needed.
3. I changed SILFunctionTransform::notifyAddFunction to just add the function to
the passmanager worklist. It does not need to notify the pass manager's logging
or analyses that a new function was added to the module since
SILOptFunctionBuilder now performs that operation. Given its reduced
functionality, I changed the name to addFunctionToPassManagerWorklist(...). The
name is a little long/verbose, but this is a feature since one should think
before getting the pass manager to rerun transforms on a function. Also, giving
it a longer name calls out the operation in the code visually, giving this
operation more prominance when reading code. NOTE: I did the rename using
Xcode's refactoring functionality!
rdar://42301529
I am going to add the code in a bit that does the notifications. I tried to pass
down the builder instead of the pass manager. I also tried not to change the
formatting.
rdar://42301529
This commit does not modify those APIs or their usage. It just:
1. Moves the APIs onto SILFunctionBuilder and makes SILFunctionBuilder a friend
of SILModule.
2. Hides the APIs on SILModule so all users need to use SILFunctionBuilder to
create/destroy functions.
I am doing this in order to allow for adding/removing function notifications to
be enforced via the type system in the SILOptimizer. In the process of finishing
off CallerAnalysis for FSO, I discovered that we were not doing this everywhere
we need to. After considering various other options such as:
1. Verifying after all passes that the notifications were sent correctly and
asserting. Turned out to be expensive.
2. Putting a callback in SILModule. This would add an unnecessary virtual call.
I realized that by using a builder we can:
1. Enforce that users of SILFunctionBuilder can only construct composed function
builders by making the composed function builder's friends of
SILFunctionBuilder (notice I did not use the word subclass, I am talking
about a pure composition).
2. Refactor a huge amount of code in SILOpt/SILGen that involve function
creation onto a SILGenFunctionBuilder/SILOptFunctionBuilder struct. Many of
the SILFunction creation code in question are straight up copies of each
other with small variations. A builder would be a great way to simplify that
code.
3. Reduce the size of SILModule.cpp by 25% from ~30k -> ~23k making the whole
file easier to read.
NOTE: In this commit, I do not hide the constructor of SILFunctionBuilder since
I have not created the derived builder structs yet. Once I have created those in
a subsequent commit, I will hide that constructor.
rdar://42301529
We run GlobalOpt multiple times in the pass pipeline but in some cases object outlining shouldn't be done too early.
Having it done in a separate pass enables to run it independently from GlobalOpt.
We run GlobalOpt multiple times in the pass pipeline but in some cases object outlining shouldn't be done too early.
Having it done in a separate pass enables to run it independently from GlobalOpt.
