The problem with `is_escaping_closure` was that it didn't consume its operand and therefore reference count checks were unreliable.
For example, copy-propagation could break it.
As this instruction was always used together with an immediately following `destroy_value` of the closure, it makes sense to combine both into a `destroy_not_escaped_closure`.
It
1. checks the reference count and returns true if it is 1
2. consumes and destroys the operand
This enables access enforcement analysis to classify a dynamic begin_access in
access patterns (such as the one below) involving a throwing function as not
having nested conflicts.
```
struct Stack {
var items : [UInt8]
mutating func pop() throws -> UInt8 {
guard let item = items.popLast() else { throw SomeErr.err }
return item
}
...
}
class Container {
private var ref : Stack
@inline(never)
internal func someMethod() throws {
try ref.pop()
}
...
}
```
rdar://141182074
Usually there _must_ be a read from a consuming in-argument, because the function has to consume the argument.
But in the special case if all control paths end up in an `unreachable`, the consuming read might have been dead-code eliminated.
Therefore make sure to add the read-effect in any case. Otherwise it can result in memory lifetime failures at a call site.
fixes a memory lifetime failure
rdar://134881045
If an argument escapes in a called function, we don't know anything about the argument's side effects.
For example, it could escape to the return value and effects might occur in the caller.
Fixes a miscompile
https://github.com/apple/swift/issues/73477
rdar://127691335
Fixes rdar://113339972 DeadStoreElimination causes uninitialized closure context
Before this fix, the recently enabled function side effect implementation
would return no side effects for a partial apply that is not applied
in the same function. This resulted in DeadStoreElimination
incorrectly eliminating the initialization of the closure context.
The fix is to model the effects of capturing the arguments for the
closure context. The effects of running the closure body will be
considered later, at the point that the closure is
applied. Running the closure does, however, depend on the captured
values to be valid. If the value being captured is addressible,
then we need to model the effect of reading from that memory. In
this case, the capture reads from a local stack slot:
%stack = alloc_stack $Klass
store %ref to %stack : $*Klass
%closure = partial_apply [callee_guaranteed] %f(%stack)
: $@convention(thin) (@in_guaranteed Klass) -> ()
Later, when the closure is applied, we won't have any reference back
to the original stack slot. The application may not even happen in a caller.
Note that, even if the closure will be applied in the current
function, the side effects of the application are insufficient to
cover the side effects of the capture. For example, the closure
body itself may not read from an argument, but the context must
still be valid in case it is copied or if the capture itself was
not a bitwise-move.
As an optimization, we ignore the effect of captures for on-stack
partial applies. Such captures are always either a bitwise-move
or, more commonly, capture the source value by address. In these
cases, the side effects of applying the closure are sufficient to
cover the effects of the captures. And, if an on-stack closure is
not invoked in the current function (or passed to a callee) then
it will never be invoked, so the captures never have effects.
Although nonescaping closures are representationally trivial pointers to their
on-stack context, it is useful to model them as borrowing their captures, which
allows for checking correct use of move-only values across the closure, and
lets us model the lifetime dependence between a closure and its captures without
an ad-hoc web of `mark_dependence` instructions.
During ownership elimination, We eliminate copy/destroy_value instructions and
end the partial_apply's lifetime with an explicit dealloc_stack as before,
for compatibility with existing IRGen and non-OSSA aware passes.
A destroy_addr also involves a read from the address. It's equivalent to a `%x = load [take]` and `destroy_value %x`.
It's also a write, because the stored value is not available anymore after the destroy.
Fixes a compiler crash in SILMem2Reg.
rdar://103879105
Functions "are deinit barriers" (more pedantically, applies of functions
are deinit barriers) if any of their instructions are deinit barriers.
During side-effect analysis, when walking a function's instructions for
other global effects, also check for the deinit-barrier effect. If an
instruction is found to be a deinit barrier, mark the function's global
effects accordingly.
Add SILFunction::isDeinitBarrier to conveniently access the effects
computed during ComputeSideEffects.
Update the isBarrierApply predicate to iterate over the list of callees,
if complete, to check whether any is a deinit barrier. If none is, then
the apply is not a deinit barrier.
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.
