The new implementation has several benefits compared to the old C++ implementation:
* It is significantly simpler. It optimizes each load separately instead of all at once with bit-field based dataflow.
* It's using alias analysis more accurately which enables more loads to be optimized
* It avoids inserting additional copies in OSSA
The algorithm is a data flow analysis which starts at the original load and searches for preceding stores or loads by following the control flow in backward direction.
The preceding stores and loads provide the "available values" with which the original load can be replaced.
The old C++ pass didn't catch a few cases.
Also:
* The new pass is significantly simpler: it doesn't perform dataflow for _all_ memory locations at once using bitfields, but handles each store separately. (In both implementations there is a complexity limit in place to avoid quadratic complexity)
* The new pass works with OSSA
It sets the `[bare]` attribute for `alloc_ref` and `global_value` instructions if their header (reference count and metatype) is not used throughout the lifetime of the object.
This allows to run the NamedReturnValueOptimization only late in the pipeline.
The optimization shouldn't be done before serialization, because it might prevent predictable memory optimizations in the caller after inlining.
It converts a lazily initialized global to a statically initialized global variable.
When this pass runs on a global initializer `[global_init_once_fn]` it tries to create a static initializer for the initialized global.
```
sil [global_init_once_fn] @globalinit {
alloc_global @the_global
%a = global_addr @the_global
%i = some_const_initializer_insts
store %i to %a
}
```
The pass creates a static initializer for the global:
```
sil_global @the_global = {
%initval = some_const_initializer_insts
}
```
and removes the allocation and store instructions from the initializer function:
```
sil [global_init_once_fn] @globalinit {
%a = global_addr @the_global
%i = some_const_initializer_insts
}
```
The initializer then becomes a side-effect free function which let's the builtin-simplification remove the `builtin "once"` which calls the initializer.
If a `debug_step` has the same debug location as a previous or succeeding instruction it is removed.
It's just important that there is at least one instruction for a certain debug location so that single stepping on that location will work.
* split the `PassContext` into multiple protocols and structs: `Context`, `MutatingContext`, `FunctionPassContext` and `SimplifyContext`
* change how instruction passes work: implement the `simplify` function in conformance to `SILCombineSimplifyable`
* add a mechanism to add a callback for inserted instructions
Replace the generic `List` with the (non-generic) `InstructionList` and `BasicBlockList`.
The `InstructionList` is now a bit different than the `BasicBlockList` because it supports that instructions are deleted while iterating over the list.
Also add a test pass which tests instruction modification while iteration.
Added new C++-to-Swift callback for isDeinitBarrier.
And pass it CalleeAnalysis so it can depend on function effects. For
now, the argument is ignored. And, all callers just pass nullptr.
Promoted to API the mayAccessPointer component predicate of
isDeinitBarrier which needs to remain in C++. That predicate will also
depends on function effects. For that reason, it too is now passed a
BasicCalleeAnalysis and is moved into SILOptimizer.
Also, added more conservative versions of isDeinitBarrier and
maySynchronize which will never consider side-effects.
Computes the side effects for a function, which consists of argument- and global effects.
This is similar to the ComputeEscapeEffects pass, just for side-effects.
Dead-end blocks are blocks from which there is no path to the function exit (`return`, `throw` or unwind).
These are blocks which end with an unreachable instruction and blocks from which all paths end in "unreachable" blocks.
It decides which functions need stack protection.
It sets the `needStackProtection` flags on all function which contain stack-allocated values for which an buffer overflow could occur.
Within safe swift code there shouldn't be any buffer overflows.
But if the address of a stack variable is converted to an unsafe pointer, it's not in the control of the compiler anymore.
This means, if there is any `address_to_pointer` instruction for an `alloc_stack`, such a function is marked for stack protection.
Another case is `index_addr` for non-tail allocated memory.
This pattern appears if pointer arithmetic is done with unsafe pointers in swift code.
If the origin of an unsafe pointer can only be tracked to a function argument, the pass tries to find the root stack allocation for such an argument by doing an inter-procedural analysis.
If this is not possible, the fallback is to move the argument into a temporary `alloc_stack` and do the unsafe pointer operations on the temporary.
rdar://93677524
Provides a list of instructions, which reference a function.
A function "use" is an instruction in another (or the same) function which references the function.
In most cases those are `function_ref` instructions, but can also be e.g. `keypath` instructions.
'FunctionUses' performs an analysis of all functions in the module and collects instructions which reference other functions.
This utility can be used to do inter-procedural caller-analysis.
To add a module pass in `Passes.def` use the new `SWIFT_MODULE_PASS` macro.
On the swift side, create a `ModulePass`.
It’s run function receives a `ModulePassContext`, which provides access to all functions of a module.
But it doesn't provide any APIs to modify functions.
In order to modify a function, a module pass must use `ModulePassContext.transform(function:)`.
Removes redundant ObjectiveC <-> Swift bridging calls.
Basically, if a value is bridged from ObjectiveC to Swift an then back to ObjectiveC again, then just re-use the original ObjectiveC value.
Also in this commit: add an additional DCE pass before ownership elimination. It can cleanup dead code which is left behind by the ObjCBridgingOptimization.
rdar://89987440
To use _RegexParser from SwiftSyntax.
* Create 'libswiftCompilerModules_SwiftSyntax.a' which is a subset of
'libswiftCompilerModules.a'
* Link 'lib_InternalSwiftSyntaxParser' to
'libswiftCompilerModules_SwiftSyntax.a'
* Factor out swift runtime linking logic in CMake so that dynamic
libraries can link to Swift runtime, in addition to executables
* Link 'lib_InternalSwiftSyntaxParser' to swift runtime
This fixes:
* An issue where the diagnostic messages were leaked
* Diagnose at correct position inside the regex literal
To do this:
* Introduce 'Parse' SwiftCompiler module that is a bridging layer
between '_CompilerRegexParser' and C++ libParse
* Move libswiftParseRegexLiteral and libswiftLexRegexLiteral to 'Parse'
Also this change makes 'SwiftCompilerSources/Package.swift' be configured
by CMake so it can actually be built with 'swift-build'.
rdar://92187284
The ComputeEffects pass derives escape information for function arguments and adds those effects in the function.
This needs a lot of changes in check-lines in the tests, because the effects are printed in SIL
The ComputeEffects pass derives escape information for function arguments and adds those effects in the function.
This needs a lot of changes in check-lines in the tests, because the effects are printed in SIL
As the _MatchingEngine module no longer contains the matching engine, this patch renames this module to describe its role more accurately. Because this module primarily contains the AST and the regex parsing logic, I propose we rename it to "_RegexParser".
Also renames the ExperimentalRegex module in SwiftCompilerSources to _RegexParser for consistency. This would prevent errors if sources in _RegexParser used qualified lookup with the module name.
The `run-unit-tests` is a "pseudo" pass which is invoked from sil-opt and runs all the unit tests, implemented in Swift.
This is done from the `swift-unit-tests.sil` lit test.
