Hi Ben, > On Nov 29, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Ben Ng <m...@benng.me> wrote: > > Hi Slava, > > The use of the unsubstituted function type turned out to be the issue. The > verifier was satisfied after I fixed that, and my proof of concept worked.
Great to hear! > > For context, I'm working on an addition to the ArrayValuePropagation pass > that makes code like this: > > foo += [5] > > Equivalent to this code: > > foo.append(5) > > Which is 6x faster. Awesome. > Additionally, I am not sure how to get the unlowered AST type. This code is > in an optimization pass, so I don't see how I can reach back into the > original AST to get the unlowered type. Does it involve > SilInstruction::getLoc()? Can you use the original ArrayRef<Substitution> from the Apply to += in 'foo += [5]’? In both cases, you’re applying a function value whose original type has a single generic parameter <T> right? > > Thanks, > > Ben > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 10:17 PM Slava Pestov <spes...@apple.com > <mailto:spes...@apple.com>> wrote: > One more thing: > >> >> auto subTy = V->getType(); > > This is a SILType. > >> auto &ValLowering = Builder.getModule().getTypeLowering(subTy); >> auto copiedVal = ValLowering.emitCopyValue(Builder, SemanticsCall->getLoc(), >> V); >> auto allocStackInst = Builder.createAllocStack(SemanticsCall->getLoc(), >> subTy); >> Builder.createStore(SemanticsCall->getLoc(), copiedVal, allocStackInst, >> StoreOwnershipQualifier::Unqualified); >> ArrayRef<Substitution> subs{Substitution(subTy.getSwiftType(), >> conformances)}; > > ‘subTy.getSwiftType()’ is a “lowered AST type”. The replacement type in a > substitution should be the “unlowered” AST type that came from the original > Expr that you’re emitting into SIL. > > Slava > >> SILValue args[] = {allocStackInst, ArrRef}; >> Builder.createApply(SemanticsCall->getLoc(), fnRef, fnTy, >> fnTy.castTo<SILFunctionType>()->getSILResult(), >> subs, args, false); >> Builder.createDeallocStack(SemanticsCall->getLoc(), allocStackInst); >> >> Here is Builder.createApply’s signature for convenience: >> >> ApplyInst *createApply(SILLocation Loc, SILValue Fn, SILType SubstFnTy, >> SILType Result, ArrayRef<Substitution> Subs, >> ArrayRef<SILValue> Args, bool isNonThrowing) >> >>> On Nov 27, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Ben Ng <m...@benng.me <mailto:m...@benng.me>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Slava gave me a hint: create a SubstitutionMap and then use the methods on >>> GenericEnvironment to turn it into ArrayRef<Substitution>. I'll try that >>> out tonight and see how far I get. >>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 2:12 PM Michael Gottesman <mgottes...@apple.com >>> <mailto:mgottes...@apple.com>> wrote: >>> +CC Slava. >>> >>> He has been messing around with this area in the past bit since many of us >>> have looked at this. He is the person you want. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> > On Nov 25, 2016, at 8:42 PM, Ben Ng <m...@benng.me >>> > <mailto:m...@benng.me>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi everyone, >>> > >>> > I’ve made good progress with the information in this thread but I can’t >>> > figure out how to create the proper set of substitutions for the method >>> > that I’m calling. >>> > >>> > The error I’m getting, as expected, is "SIL verification failed: callee >>> > of apply without substitutions must not be polymorphic: >>> > !fnTy->isPolymorphic()" >>> > >>> > I was hoping that there would be a way to delay specialization of the >>> > function that I’m replacing so that I can simply reuse those >>> > substitutions, but it doesn’t seem like that’s possible. >>> > >>> > At a high level I assumed that I’d simply be able to substitute a type >>> > like `Int` for `τ_0_0`, but it looks like I have to use a >>> > ProtocolConformanceRef, which I don’t understand. >>> > >>> > I looked into iterating through >>> > `getLoweredFunctionType()->getGenericSignature()->getGenericParams()`, >>> > but I don’t see how I can turn the information there into >>> > ProtocolConformanceRef. >>> > >>> > Thanks for the help as always, >>> > >>> > Ben >>> > >>> >> On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:47 PM, Ben Ng <m...@benng.me >>> >> <mailto:m...@benng.me>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer >>> >>> <aschwaigho...@apple.com <mailto:aschwaigho...@apple.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Ben Ng <m...@benng.me >>> >>>> <mailto:m...@benng.me>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Correct, that is what I am trying to do. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer >>> >>>>> <aschwaigho...@apple.com <mailto:aschwaigho...@apple.com>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> // Really, by the time you look at this in array value prop >>> >>>>> // this call should have been inline and you would see a call >>> >>>>> // to: >>> >>>>> // a.append(contentsOf: [1]) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I do not understand this comment; I thought that inlining of stdlib >>> >>>> functions happened after high-level SIL optimizations are run. Is my >>> >>>> understanding incorrect? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Inlining of functions with @_semantics is delayed until after >>> >>> high-level SIL optimizations are run. Other functions are inlined. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/lib/SILOptimizer/PassManager/Passes.cpp#L221 >>> >>> >>> >>> <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/lib/SILOptimizer/PassManager/Passes.cpp#L221> >>> >>> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/lib/SILOptimizer/Transforms/PerformanceInliner.cpp#L722 >>> >>> >>> >>> <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/lib/SILOptimizer/Transforms/PerformanceInliner.cpp#L722> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I recommend looking at the SIL function dump in >>> >>> ArrayElementValuePropagation of an example function after adding >>> >>> @semantics(“array.mutate_unknown”) to “append(contentsOf:)”. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> $ git diff HEAD~ >>> >>> diff --git >>> >>> a/lib/SILOptimizer/Transforms/ArrayElementValuePropagation.cpp >>> >>> b/lib/SILOptimizer/Transforms/ArrayElementValuePropagation.cpp >>> >>> index 76328a6..cb976f7 100644 >>> >>> --- a/lib/SILOptimizer/Transforms/ArrayElementValuePropagation.cpp >>> >>> +++ b/lib/SILOptimizer/Transforms/ArrayElementValuePropagation.cpp >>> >>> @@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ public: >>> >>> void run() override { >>> >>> auto &Fn = *getFunction(); >>> >>> >>> >>> + Fn.dump(); >>> >>> + >>> >>> bool Changed = false; >>> >>> >>> >>> // Propagate the elements an of array value to its users. >>> >>> diff --git a/stdlib/public/core/Arrays.swift.gyb >>> >>> b/stdlib/public/core/Arrays.swift.gyb >>> >>> index f00cc23..2acfd06 100644 >>> >>> --- a/stdlib/public/core/Arrays.swift.gyb >>> >>> +++ b/stdlib/public/core/Arrays.swift.gyb >>> >>> @@ -1344,6 +1344,7 @@ extension ${Self} : RangeReplaceableCollection, >>> >>> _ArrayProtocol { >>> >>> /// - Parameter newElements: The elements to append to the array. >>> >>> /// >>> >>> /// - Complexity: O(*n*), where *n* is the length of the resulting >>> >>> array. >>> >>> + @_semantics("array.mutate_unknown") >>> >>> public mutating func append<C : Collection>(contentsOf newElements: C) >>> >>> where C.Iterator.Element == Element { >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> # Rebuild the compiler and stdlib (without stdlib assertions). >>> >>> $ swift/utils/build-script -r --assertions --no-swift-stdlib-assertions >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> $ cat TestArray.swift >>> >>> @inline(never) >>> >>> public func test() { >>> >>> var a = [1, 2, 3] >>> >>> a += [1] >>> >>> print(a) >>> >>> } >>> >>> >>> >>> $ bin/swiftc -O 2>&1 | less >>> >>> ... >>> >>> sil shared [_semantics "array.mutate_unknown"] >>> >>> @_TTSg5Si_GSaSi_GSaSi_s10Collections___TFSa6appenduRd__s10CollectionxzWd__8Iterator7Element_rfT10contentsOfqd___T_ >>> >>> : $@convention(method) (@owned Array<I >>> >>> nt>, @inout Array<Int>) -> () { >>> >>> >>> >>> … >>> >>> // testArray() -> () >>> >>> sil [noinline] @_TF9TestArray9testArrayFT_T_ : $@convention(thin) () -> >>> >>> () { >>> >>> bb0: >>> >>> %0 = alloc_stack $Array<Int>, var, name "a", loc "TestArray.swift":3:7, >>> >>> scope 2 // users: %54, %32, %60, %23, %43 >>> >>> %1 = integer_literal $Builtin.Word, 3, loc "TestArray.swift":3:12, >>> >>> scope 2 // user: %4 >>> >>> %2 = integer_literal $Builtin.Int64, 3, scope 5 // user: %3 >>> >>> %3 = struct $Int (%2 : $Builtin.Int64), scope 5 // users: %22, %7 >>> >>> %4 = alloc_ref [tail_elems $Int * %1 : $Builtin.Word] >>> >>> $_ContiguousArrayStorage<Int>, scope 5 // user: %7 >>> >>> %5 = metatype $@thin Array<Int>.Type, scope 5 // users: %25, %7 >>> >>> // function_ref specialized static >>> >>> Array._adoptStorage(_ContiguousArrayStorage<A>, count : Int) -> ([A], >>> >>> UnsafeMutablePointer<A>) >>> >>> %6 = function_ref >>> >>> @_TTSg5Si___TZFSa13_adoptStoragefTGCs23_ContiguousArrayStoragex_5countSi_TGSax_GSpx__ >>> >>> : $@convention(method) (@owned _ContiguousArrayStorage<Int>, Int, >>> >>> @thin Array<Int>.Type) -> (@ >>> >>> owned Array<Int>, UnsafeMutablePointer<Int>), scope 5 // users: %25, %7 >>> >>> %7 = apply %6(%4, %3, %5) : $@convention(method) (@owned >>> >>> _ContiguousArrayStorage<Int>, Int, @thin Array<Int>.Type) -> (@owned >>> >>> Array<Int>, UnsafeMutablePointer<Int>), scope 5 // users: %9, %8 >>> >>> %8 = tuple_extract %7 : $(Array<Int>, UnsafeMutablePointer<Int>), 0, >>> >>> scope 5 // user: %23 >>> >>> %9 = tuple_extract %7 : $(Array<Int>, UnsafeMutablePointer<Int>), 1, >>> >>> scope 5 // user: %10 >>> >>> %10 = struct_extract %9 : $UnsafeMutablePointer<Int>, >>> >>> #UnsafeMutablePointer._rawValue, scope 5 // user: %11 >>> >>> %11 = pointer_to_address %10 : $Builtin.RawPointer to [strict] $*Int, >>> >>> loc "TestArray.swift":3:12, scope 2 // users: %14, %21, %16 >>> >>> %12 = integer_literal $Builtin.Int64, 1, loc "TestArray.swift":3:12, >>> >>> scope 2 // user: %13 >>> >>> %13 = struct $Int (%12 : $Builtin.Int64), loc "TestArray.swift":3:12, >>> >>> scope 2 // users: %37, %30, %25, %14 >>> >>> store %13 to %11 : $*Int, loc "TestArray.swift":3:12, scope 2 // id: %14 >>> >>> %15 = integer_literal $Builtin.Word, 1, loc "TestArray.swift":3:15, >>> >>> scope 2 // users: %34, %24, %16 >>> >>> %16 = index_addr %11 : $*Int, %15 : $Builtin.Word, loc >>> >>> "TestArray.swift":3:15, scope 2 // user: %19 >>> >>> %17 = integer_literal $Builtin.Int64, 2, loc "TestArray.swift":3:15, >>> >>> scope 2 // user: %18 >>> >>> %18 = struct $Int (%17 : $Builtin.Int64), loc "TestArray.swift":3:15, >>> >>> scope 2 // user: %19 >>> >>> store %18 to %16 : $*Int, loc "TestArray.swift":3:15, scope 2 // id: %19 >>> >>> %20 = integer_literal $Builtin.Word, 2, loc "TestArray.swift":3:18, >>> >>> scope 2 // user: %21 >>> >>> %21 = index_addr %11 : $*Int, %20 : $Builtin.Word, loc >>> >>> "TestArray.swift":3:18, scope 2 // user: %22 >>> >>> store %3 to %21 : $*Int, loc "TestArray.swift":3:18, scope 2 // id: %22 >>> >>> store %8 to %0 : $*Array<Int>, loc "TestArray.swift":3:18, scope 2 // >>> >>> id: %23 >>> >>> %24 = alloc_ref [tail_elems $Int * %15 : $Builtin.Word] >>> >>> $_ContiguousArrayStorage<Int>, scope 7 // user: %25 >>> >>> %25 = apply %6(%24, %13, %5) : $@convention(method) (@owned >>> >>> _ContiguousArrayStorage<Int>, Int, @thin Array<Int>.Type) -> (@owned >>> >>> Array<Int>, UnsafeMutablePointer<Int>), scope 7 // users: %27, %26 >>> >>> %26 = tuple_extract %25 : $(Array<Int>, UnsafeMutablePointer<Int>), 0, >>> >>> scope 7 // user: %32 >>> >>> %27 = tuple_extract %25 : $(Array<Int>, UnsafeMutablePointer<Int>), 1, >>> >>> scope 7 // user: %28 >>> >>> %28 = struct_extract %27 : $UnsafeMutablePointer<Int>, >>> >>> #UnsafeMutablePointer._rawValue, scope 7 // user: %29 >>> >>> %29 = pointer_to_address %28 : $Builtin.RawPointer to [strict] $*Int, >>> >>> loc "TestArray.swift":4:9, scope 2 // user: %30 >>> >>> store %13 to %29 : $*Int, loc "TestArray.swift":4:9, scope 2 // id: %30 >>> >>> // function_ref specialized Array.append<A where ...> (contentsOf : A1) >>> >>> -> () >>> >>> %31 = function_ref >>> >>> @_TTSg5Si_GSaSi_GSaSi_s10Collections___TFSa6appenduRd__s10CollectionxzWd__8Iterator7Element_rfT10contentsOfqd___T_ >>> >>> : $@convention(method) (@owned Array<Int>, @inout Array<Int>) -> (), >>> >>> scope 10 // user: %32 >>> >>> %32 = apply %31(%26, %0) : $@convention(method) (@owned Array<Int>, >>> >>> @inout Array<Int>) -> (), scope 10 >>> >> >>> >> Ah, I do remember seeing something about how the semantic attribute >>> >> stops some functions from being inlined early. Thanks for saving me a >>> >> bunch of head-scratching! >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
