This pass lowers moveonly-ness from the IR after we have finished move only
checking. The transform can be configured in two ways: such that it only handles
trivial types and such that it does trivial and non-trivial types. For ease of
use, I created two top level transforms (TrivialMoveOnlyTypeEliminator and
MoveOnlyTypeElimintor) that invoke the two behaviors by configuring the
underlying transform slightly differently.
For now, I am running first the trivial-only and then the all of the above
lowering. The trivial only pass will remain at this part of the pipeline
forever, but with time we are going to move the lower everything pass later into
the pipeline once I have audited the optimizer pipeline to just not perform any
work on move only types. That being said, currently we do not have this
guarantee and this patch at least improves the world and lets us codegen no
implicit copy code again.
It just trampolines to calling ValueBase::dump(). The reason I added this is
sometimes one wants to do this in the debugger and confuses if one has a
ValueBase or a SILValue causing lldb to be unhappy. By mirroring this API, one
can do the same operation on either type and just move on with ones life.
I also wrapped this in LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_DEPRECATED with a msg saying only for use
in the debugger so people do not call dump() in the codebase by mistake.
findInnerTransitiveUsesForAddress was incorrectly returning true for
pointer escapes.
Introduce enum AddressUseKind { NonEscaping, PointerEscape, Unknown };
Clients need to handle each of these cases differently.
Otherwise, we hit misc crashes. The worklist should have always been filtering
these. I wonder why we have never hit this issue before.
I added a new API that filters out type dependent uses called
ValueBase::getNonTypeDependentUses() to make it easier to perform def->use
worklist traversal ignoring these uses. This mirrors the APIs that we have
created for filtering type dependent operands when performing use->def worklist
traversal.
I also noticed that we are not eliminating a load [copy] that we could in the
test case. I am going to file a separate bug report for that work.
rdar://79781943
A place to define invariants on OperandOwnership that passes can rely
on for convenience.
Starting with a simple invariant the OperandOwnership::Borrow is a
valid BorrowingOperand.
This is the initial version of a buildable SIL definition in libswift.
It defines an initial set of SIL classes, like Function, BasicBlock, Instruction, Argument, and a few instruction classes.
The interface between C++ and SIL is a bridging layer, implemented in C.
It contains all the required bridging data structures used to access various SIL data structures.
This should be used instead of isLifetimeEnding wherever the code
assumes an owned value is consumed.
isLifetimeEnding should only be used when the code is expected to
handle both owned and guaranteed values.
The API for values is on the ValueBase. SILValue is supposed to be a
pointer-like wrapper class. Accessing a value's API is always done as
'value->api()'. The ValueBase subclasses, like SingleValueInstruction,
need to inherit the API.
I didn't have time to fix all the cases of value.isOwnershipKind()
throughout the code.
This removes the ambiguity when casting from a SingleValueInstruction to SILNode, which makes the code simpler. E.g. the "isRepresentativeSILNode" logic is not needed anymore.
Also, it reduces the size of the most used instruction class - SingleValueInstruction - by one pointer.
Conceptually, SILInstruction is still a SILNode. But implementation-wise SILNode is not a base class of SILInstruction anymore.
Only the two sub-classes of SILInstruction - SingleValueInstruction and NonSingleValueInstruction - inherit from SILNode. SingleValueInstruction's SILNode is embedded into a ValueBase and its relative offset in the class is the same as in NonSingleValueInstruction (see SILNodeOffsetChecker).
This makes it possible to cast from a SILInstruction to a SILNode without knowing which SILInstruction sub-class it is.
Casting to SILNode cannot be done implicitly, but only with an LLVM `cast` or with SILInstruction::asSILNode(). But this is a rare case anyway.
This removes the ambiguity when casting from a SingleValueInstruction to SILNode, which makes the code simpler. E.g. the "isRepresentativeSILNode" logic is not needed anymore.
Also, it reduces the size of the most used instruction class - SingleValueInstruction - by one pointer.
Conceptually, SILInstruction is still a SILNode. But implementation-wise SILNode is not a base class of SILInstruction anymore.
Only the two sub-classes of SILInstruction - SingleValueInstruction and NonSingleValueInstruction - inherit from SILNode. SingleValueInstruction's SILNode is embedded into a ValueBase and its relative offset in the class is the same as in NonSingleValueInstruction (see SILNodeOffsetChecker).
This makes it possible to cast from a SILInstruction to a SILNode without knowing which SILInstruction sub-class it is.
Casting to SILNode cannot be done implicitly, but only with an LLVM `cast` or with SILInstruction::asSILNode(). But this is a rare case anyway.
Sometimes when you are working with SILValues, you need a "next" insertion
point. This creates a problem with the SILValue API since even though one can
get an instruction or an insertion point for a value, to find the appropriate
next instruction one needs to pierce through the API and see if one has a
SILArgument or SILInstruction breaking the whole point of abstraction. The
specific problem here is that a SILArgument's "next instruction" is the first
element of the block (that is ValueBase::getDefiningInsertionPoint()) and
SILInstruction's "next instruction" is
std::next(ValueBase::getDefiningInsertionPoint()). This new
API (ValueBase::getNextInstruction()) handles this case for the compiler writer
and eliminates unnecessary code contortions.
I also did a little cleanup where I moved a doxygen comment from a near by a
const_casting trampoline method to the method that the trampoline called (see
getDefiningInsertionPoint()).
Now that OperandOwnership determines the operand constraints, it
doesn't make sense to distinguish between Borrow and NestedBorrow at
this level. We want these uses to automatically convert between the
nested/non-nested state as the operand's ownership changes. The use
does not need to impose any constraint on the ownership of the
incoming value.
For algorithms that need to distinguish nested borrows, it's still
trivial to do so.
A NonUse operand does not use the value itself, so it ignores
ownership and does not require liveness. This is for operands that
represent dependence on a type but are not actually passed the value
of that type (e.g. they may refer an open_existential). This could be
used for other dependence-only operands in the future.
A TrivialUse operand has undefined ownership semantics aside from
requiring liveness. Therefore it is only legal to pass the use a value
with ownership None (a trivial value). Contrast this with things like
InstantaneousUse or BitwiseEscape, which just don't care about
ownership (i.e. they have no ownership semantics.
All of the explicitly listed operations in this category require
trivially typed operands. So the meaning is obvious to anyone
adding SIL operations and updating OperandOwnership.cpp, without
needing to decifer the value ownership kinds.
Clarify which uses are allowed to take Unowned values. Add enforcement
to ensure that Unowned values are not passed to other uses.
Operations that can take unowned are:
- copy_value
- apply/return @unowned argument
- aggregates (struct, tuple, destructure, phi)
- forwarding operations that are arbitrary type casts
Unowned values are currently borrowed within ObjC deinitializers
materialized by the Swift compiler. This will be banned as soon as
SILGen is fixed.
Migrating to this classification was made easy by the recent rewrite
of the OSSA constraint model. It's also consistent with
instruction-level abstractions for working with different kinds of
OperandOwnership that are being designed.
This classification vastly simplifies OSSA passes that rewrite OSSA
live ranges, making it straightforward to reason about completeness
and correctness. It will allow a simple utility to canonicalize OSSA
live ranges on-the-fly.
This avoids the need for OSSA-based utilities and passes to hard-code
SIL opcodes. This will allow several of those unmaintainable pieces of
code to be replaced with a trivial OperandOwnership check.
It's extremely important for SIL maintainers to see a list of all SIL
opcodes associated with a simple OSSA classification and set of
well-specified rules for each opcode class, without needing to guess
or reverse-engineer the meaning from the implementation. This
classification does that while eliminating a pile of unreadable
macros.
This classification system is the model that CopyPropagation was
initially designed to use. Now, rather than relying on a separate
pass, a simple, lightweight utility will canonicalize OSSA
live ranges.
The major problem with writing optimizations based on OperandOwnership
is that some operations don't follow structural OSSA requirements,
such as project_box and unchecked_ownership_conversion. Those are
classified as PointerEscape which prevents the compiler from reasoning
about, or rewriting the OSSA live range.
Functional Changes:
As a side effect, this corrects many operand constraints that should
in fact require trivial operand values.
This makes it easier to understand conceptually why a ValueOwnershipKind with
Any ownership is invalid and also allowed me to explicitly document the lattice
that relates ownership constraints/value ownership kinds.
This makes it clearer that isConsumingUse() is not an owned oriented API and
returns also for instructions that end the lifetime of guaranteed values like
end_borrow.
This updates how we model reborrow's lifetimes for ownership verification.
Today we follow and combine a borrow's lifetime through phi args as well.
Owned values lifetimes end at a phi arg. This discrepency in modeling
lifetimes leads to the OwnershipVerifier raising errors incorrectly for
cases such as this, where the borrow and the base value do not dominate
the end_borrow:
bb0:
cond_br undef, bb1, bb2
bb1:
%copy0 = copy_value %0
%borrow0 = begin_borrow %copy0
br bb3(%borrow0, %copy0)
bb2:
%copy1 = copy_value %1
%borrow1 = begin_borrow %copy1
br bb3(%borrow1, %copy1)
bb3(%borrow, %baseVal):
end_borrow %borrow
destroy_value %baseVal
This PR adds a new ReborrowVerifier. The ownership verifier collects borrow's
lifetime ending users and populates the worklist of the ReborrowVerifier
with reborrows and the corresponding base value.
ReborrowVerifier then verifies that the lifetime of the reborrow is
within the lifetime of the base value.
