This commit splits DominanceAnalysis into two analysis (Dom and PDom) that
can be cached and invalidates using the common FunctionAnalysisBase interface
independent of one another.
Swift SVN r26643
Before the change the RCIdentityAnalysis kept a single map that contained
the module's RC information. When function passes needed to invalidate the
analysis they had to clear the RC information for the entire module. The
problem was mitigated by the fact that we process one function at a time, and
we start processing a new function less frequently.
II adopted the DominanceAnalysis structure. We should probably implement
this functionality as CRTP.
Swift SVN r26636
This includes:
1. Extract instructions which extracts a trivial part of an aggregate that has
one RCIdentity.
2. Instructions which take a pointer out of ARC's control by converting it to a
trivial type. This is safe to do since we can assume that the object that is
convered is alive when the conversion happens. So assuming that we can
conservatively find all RC users, we will have at least one RC user that
post dominates the use (since otherwise we would be touching a dangling
pointer). We leave it to the user of the pass to determine what is safe to do
with this information. Potentially in the future it might make sense to return
this information as well so that a user can use that information directly.
rdar://20305817
Swift SVN r26583
Previously, we were being very conservative and were not trying to look through
any RCId uses. Now we understand how to look through RCIdentical instructions to
pair a pin and unpin. We also understand how to use the new getRCUses API on
RCIdentityAnalysis to get all uses of a value, looking through RCIdentical
instructions.
I also added some code to COWArrayOpts to teach it how to look through enum insts (which I needed).
Additionally I got stuck and added support for automatic indentation in Debug
statements. This is better than having to indent by hand every time.
There were no significant perf changes since this code was not being emitted by
the frontend. But without this +0 self causes COW to break.
rdar://20267677
Swift SVN r26529
The old invalidation lattice was incorrect because changes to control flow could cause changes to the
call graph, so we've decided to change the way passes invalidate analysis. In the new scheme, the lattice
is replaced with a list of traits that passes preserve or invalidate. The current traits are Calls and Branches.
Now, passes report which traits they preserve, which is the opposite of the previous implementation where
passes needed to report what they invalidate.
Node: I tried to limit the changes in this commit to mechanical changes to ease the review. I will cleanup some
of the code in a following commit.
Swift SVN r26449
One common problem in swift code is the "reforming enum problem". What
happens here is that we have some enum %0 : $Optional<T> and we break it
apart and reform it as a new enum as in the following:
bb9:
...
switch_enum %0 : $Optional<T>, #Optional.None: bb10,
#Optional.Some: bb11
bb10:
%1 = enum $Optional<U>, #Optional.None
br bb12(%1 : $Optional<U>)
bb11:
%2 = some_cast_to_u %0 : ...
%3 = enum $Optional<U>, #Optional.Some, %2 : $U
br bb12(%3 : $Optional<U>)
bb12(%4 : $Optional<U>):
retain_value %0 : $Optional<T> // id %5
release_value %4 : $Optional<U> // id %6
We really would like to know that a retain on %4 is equivalent to a
retain on %0 so we can eliminate the retain, release pair. To be able to
do that safely, we need to know that along all paths %0 and %4 either:
1. Both refer to the same RCIdentity directly. An example of this is the
edge from bb11 -> bb12).
2. Both refer to the "null" RCIdentity (i.e. do not have a payload). An
example of this is the edge from bb10 -> bb12.
Only in such cases is it safe to match up %5, %6 and eliminate them. If
this is not true along all paths like in the following:
bb9:
...
cond_br %foo, bb10, bb11
bb10:
%1 = enum $Optional<U>, #Optional.None
br bb12(%1 : $Optional<U>)
bb11:
%2 = some_cast_to_u %0 : ...
%3 = enum $Optional<U>, #Optional.Some, %2 : $U
br bb12(%3 : $Optional<U>)
bb12(%4 : $Optional<U>):
retain_value %0 : $Optional<T> // id %5
release_value %4 : $Optional<U> // id %6
then we may have that %0 is always non-payloaded coming into bb12. Then
by matching up %0 and %4, if we go from bb9 -> bb11, we will lose a
retain.
Perf Changes:
TITLE..................OLD...........NEW...........NEW/OLD
LevenshteinDistance....1398195.00....1177397.00....0.84
Memset.................26541.00......23701.00......0.89
CaptureProp............5603.00.......5031.00.......0.90
ImageProc..............1281.00.......1196.00.......0.93
InsertionSort..........109828.00.....104129.00.....0.95
StringWalk.............6813.00.......7456.00.......1.09
Chars..................27182.00......30443.00......1.12
The StringWalk, Chars are both reproducible for me. When I turn back on parts of
the recursion (I took the recursion out to make this change more conservative),
the Chars regression goes away, but the StringWalk stays. I have not had a
chance to look at what is going on with StringWalk.
rdar://19724405
Swift SVN r25339
This is important since to be more aggressive we are ignoring incoming values
that are no-payload enums since as far as we are concerned they do not matter
since retains, releases on those values are no-ops.
Swift SVN r21932
The cache is needed to ensure we do not run into compile time problems once we
start looking through Phi Nodes.
The analysis is currently disabled and just returns
SILValue::stripRCIdentityPreservingOps. I am going to thread it through the rest
of the passes that use that call. Then I am going to hide
stripRCIdentityPreservingArgs. Finally post OzU, I am going to enable the pass.
rdar://18300069
Swift SVN r21891
