> On Dec 1, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Dec 1, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Andrew Trick <atr...@apple.com >> <mailto:atr...@apple.com>> wrote: >> >> Responding on swift-dev to what turned into an interesting discussion… >> >>> On Dec 1, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com >>> <mailto:jgr...@apple.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 1, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 1, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Andrew Trick <atr...@apple.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 1, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Jordan Rose <jordan_r...@apple.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2016, at 18:16, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Andrew Trick <atr...@apple.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We definitely want an inline-at-Onone, but I assumed we were treating >>>>>>>> "@inline(__always)" as a normal heuristic because: >>>>>>>> - @transparent already does inline-at-Onone. >>>>>>>> - @inline(__always) without @transparent negatively affects the debug >>>>>>>> experience. >>>>>>>> - @inline(__always) isn't useful if no optimizations are run after >>>>>>>> inlining. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That said, if the common expectation is for @inline(__always) to kick >>>>>>>> in independent of optimization, then we should honor that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's easy for me to add an inlining pass to runSILPassesForOnone. I'm >>>>>>>> just not sure that will have the effect people are looking for. It's >>>>>>>> unlikely to help performance since nothing is going to run after the >>>>>>>> inlining (no capture promotion or alloc box-to-stack). The only >>>>>>>> optimization we currently run at Onone after diagnostics is >>>>>>>> prespecialization. >> >> Actually, the inliner specializes as it goes, so inlining after mandatory >> SIL passes would still be quite useful. >> >> My concern is really that the user may expect inline(__always) to be as >> effective a performance tool as @transparent, while preserving debug line >> locations. >> If it runs late, it doesn’t expose capture promotion, box-to-stack, >> guaranteed ARC optimization, etc. >> >>>>>>>> If someone is using inline(__always) for -Onone performance reasons, I >>>>>>>> think they really need to use @transparent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An alternative is to have @inline(__always) be another way to spell >>>>>>>> @transparent. People would need to implicitly know that this would >>>>>>>> affect diagnostics of the inlined method. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any thoughts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> `@transparent` doesn't just mean "inline-at-Onone", it also allows >>>>>>> diagnostic passes to constant-fold through the implementation and >>>>>>> actively eliminates debug information. It was never intended to be used >>>>>>> for performance, but only for the limited set of things that need it. I >>>>>>> imagine that the specialization you get by inlining some things is >>>>>>> pretty important by itself. I suspect closure inlining would also be >>>>>>> helpful for a lot of low-level "with*" combinators; doesn't transparent >>>>>>> inlining do that, and could inline-always-inlining do the same? >>>>>> >>>>>> For reference: >>>>>> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/TransparentAttr.rst >>>>>> <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/TransparentAttr.rst> >>>>> >>>>> The only remaining question: is it ok for a non-transparent function to >>>>> be inlined prior to running some dataflow diagnostics? >>>> >>>> Doing so changes the set of programs that are accepted, since it may >>>> expose more code to diagnostic passes. We don't want diagnostics to depend >>>> on optimizations. >>> >>> Perhaps we could avoid this by changing the diagnostic passes to >>> intentionally ignore instructions with inlined source locations, though >>> that seems brittle. >>> >>> -Joe >> >> Well, inline(__always) would be mandatory, not an optimization. But I think >> your point is that the user does not expect that attribute to affect program >> legality. Having data-flow diagnostics “ignore” certain instructions sounds >> horrible. Is there an obvious problem, or is this hypothetical? i.e. is >> there some diagnostic that is currently enforced at the function boundary >> but would be considered legal code after inlining? > > An example of something that depends on dataflow diagnostics would be > something that's constant-foldable causing static overflow diagnostics: > > func double(_ x: UInt8) -> UInt8 { > return x + x > } > > _ = double(128) > > Making `double` transparent causes the compiler to statically reject the call: > > /Users/jgroff/bar.swift:6:5: error: arithmetic operation '128 + 128' (on > unsigned 8-bit integer type) results in an overflow > _ = double(128) > ^ > > -Joe
Right. In fact, constant propagation appears to be the only diagnostic that needs to run after mandatory inlining (I was misremembering SILDiagnostic pipeline): PM.addCapturePromotion(); PM.addAllocBoxToStack(); PM.addNoReturnFolding(); PM.addDefiniteInitialization(); PM.addMandatoryInlining(); PM.addPredictableMemoryOptimizations(); PM.addDiagnosticConstantPropagation(); PM.addGuaranteedARCOpts(); I think PredicatableMemoryOptimization is a "required" optimization, not a diagnostic, and GuaranteedARCOpts is an "expected" optimization that doesn't need to be in the diagnostic pipeline at all. I'm not sure it's actually bad for @inline(__always) to strengthen diagnostics, but it isn't the pure solution. So, in the interest of purity, I'll suggest this: Diagnostic Pipeline: PM.addCapturePromotion(); PM.addAllocBoxToStack(); PM.addNoReturnFolding(); PM.addDefiniteInitialization(); PM.addMandatoryInlining(); PM.addPredictableMemoryOptimizations(); PM.addDiagnosticConstantPropagation(); Onone Pipeline: PM.addGuaranteedInlining(); PM.addGuaranteedARCOpts(); Eventually we could add another round of PredictableMemoryOptimizations to the Onone pipeline if needed. -Andy
_______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
