Repository navigation
SSA: Split reads in MakeSsa based on explicit/implicit instead of certain/uncertain. #23071
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When is not the same as
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The whole point of the PR is to be able to distinguish the two. If we merely use
variableRead(bb, i, v, true) and e.getControlFlowNode() = bb.getNode(i)then we make the assumption that the expression implies the variable - and furthermore, in this context we assume that the expression is the variable read. This is true for explicit reads where the expression is a concrete read of a specific variable, but there are several cases where we have certain reads (4th column = true invariableRead) that are implicit, so the expression at the cfg node of the read isn't the actual variable read. E.g. implicitthis/self, which is tracked as an SSA variable in unified. Also, Go functions have an epilogue where return variables are implicitly read. These are reads that should havecertain = truebecause they should be included in the data flow integration, but they should not be included inSsaVariable.getARead(), since that returns an expression that's assumed to equal the read.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just for my understanding: This makes no difference for Java and C# (which are the only languages using this interface right now), right?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe that's right. Note that there is a PR to adopt
MakeSsafor Go: #22857. I've paused working on it due to this refactor. From memory the last commit "Get aroundSsaDefinition.getAReadnot including result read instructions" is working around the issue that this PR is addressing. When a go function has named result parameters, we insert a CFG nodes for a read of each variable at the end of the function, andgetARead()was not including those reads, as they don't have a correspondingExpr.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correct.