This is resolving a fuzz-discovered crash related to function suspends
and compile time bind indices. Although the crash originally came from
clearly invalid syntax (missing the `=` inside a `class` decl), the
syntax with a value should also be valid but has the same crash.
This approach disallows compile-time bindings in contexts that can
create ambiguous results, particularly class declarations. These are an
issue because a suspended function can have let declarations after it.
I'm allowing them in function bodies and interface scopes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
This switches `DCHECK` and `FATAL` as well.
The goal is to reduce the code size impact of these assertions so that
we can keep more of them enabled. Currently, the largest cost I see from
`CHECK` is not the actual check or the cold code itself, but actually
the failure to inline trivial functions due to the presence of the cold
code. This means that our goal isn't to reduce apparent code size in the
final binary but the LLVM IR cost assessed for these routines in the
inliner, which closely correlates with code size but is a bit different.
As discussed in #4283, experimentation shows that a single function call
with a minimal number of arguments is the lowest cost model for these.
This is easily achieved with a format-string API that internally uses
`llvm::formatv`. This PR is essentially the `CHECK` version of #4283.
However, the check macros are substantially harder to make work with
both format strings and streaming because they also take a condition.
Also, unexpectedly, I was very successful at devising a regular
expression based automated rewrite from the streaming to the format
string form with only low 10s of manual fixes. This includes compacting
strings broken up across lines, etc. Given how well that went, I've
prepared this PR which just directly switches to the format string API
and migrate everything to use it.
One nice side-effect is that the format string approach ends up greatly
simplifying the implementation here as well.
This is ... *shockingly* effective. Parsing speeds up by more than 3%
with just this change. And checking speeds up by **8%** with this change
alone:
```
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/256 86.3µs ± 1% 82.9µs ± 1% -3.94% (p=0.000 n=17+19)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/1024 431µs ± 1% 415µs ± 1% -3.76% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/4096 1.77ms ± 1% 1.71ms ± 1% -3.18% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/16384 7.44ms ± 1% 7.17ms ± 2% -3.56% (p=0.000 n=18+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/65536 30.7ms ± 1% 29.7ms ± 1% -3.15% (p=0.000 n=18+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Parse>/262144 131ms ± 1% 127ms ± 1% -2.81% (p=0.000 n=18+18)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/256 878µs ± 2% 800µs ± 1% -8.91% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/1024 1.88ms ± 2% 1.72ms ± 1% -8.56% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/4096 5.78ms ± 2% 5.28ms ± 1% -8.70% (p=0.000 n=20+18)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/16384 21.9ms ± 1% 20.1ms ± 1% -8.02% (p=0.000 n=18+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/65536 90.4ms ± 2% 83.1ms ± 1% -8.04% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
BM_CompileAPIFileDenseDecls<Phase::Check>/262144 381ms ± 2% 352ms ± 1% -7.79% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Co-authored-by: josh11b <15258583+josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
As discussed in toolchain meeting, we want to avoid overloading the
meaning of "instance", and "specific" was the best name we found. It's a
little unorthodox and inventive, but hopefully over time will become as
unsurprising as the term "generic" is.
We can't use the instruction from the generic directly, because it
doesn't have the right constant value. Instead add an instruction that
models the transition from the constant value in the generic to the
constant value in the generic instance.
Also start associating the self generic instance with unqualified
lookups that find results in an enclosing generic, so that we track the
information necessary to create the new instruction.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Based on discussion around the region handling in generic_region_stack,
create a generic structure for the stack-of-vectors support. I also want
to add this to InstBlockStack, but that's a little more complex due to
GlobalInit, so cutting a PR here to check with review.
My work here is how I noticed #4099; I want to be sure that I'm correct
about the issue, but it's the difference between being able to use
PeekArray or not.
Note in scope_stack.h, I believe we could remove next_compile_time_index
and make it just based on elements_size(). However, I want to verify
with you before I make further changes there.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
This works to leverage the capabilities of the hashtable as much as
possible, for example using the key context in the value stores.
However, there may still be opportunities to refactor more deeply and
use the functionality even better. Hopefully this is at least
a reasonable start and gets us a clean baseline.
On an Arm M1, this is a 15% improvement on my large lexing stress test,
but ends up a wash on my x86-64 server. This is a smaller benefit than
I expected, and it's because we're using a set-of-IDs and looking up
values with a key context for things like identifiers. This pattern has
a surprising tradeoff. The new hashtable uses significantly less memory,
a 10% peak RSS reduction just from the hashtable change. But indirecting
through the vector of values makes growing the hashtable dramatically
less cache-friendly: it causes growth to randomly access every key when
rehashing. On x86, everything gained by the faster hashtable is lost in
even slower growth. And even on Arm, this eats into the benefits.
But I have a plan to tweak how identifiers specifically work to avoid
most of the growth, and so I suspect this is the right tradeoff on the
whole. It gives us significant working set size reduction and we can
likely avoid the regressed operation (growth with rehash) in most cases
by clever reserving and if necessary by adding a hash caching layer to
the table infrastructure.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
I found this through inspection, looking at an array stack data type.
Tests pass either way, not sure what a good test would be for
regressions (tests do fail if the size doesn't match, but either
approach gets an appropriate size). But this is followed by
`truncate(remaining_compile_time_bindings)`, so it seems like
`drop_back` is a better match than `drop_front`.
Build a `Generic` object for generic functions. This object tracks the
generic parameters that are in scope for the generic entity. Eventually
it will track other information about the generic too.
Add basic SemIR formatting support for generic functions.
Following up on discussion from #3948, doing a general rename of
"enclosing scope" to "parent scope" (and "enclosing scopes" to "ancestor
scopes"). The intent is to improve understandability and collide less
with C++ terminology for "enclosing scope". Note this changes most uses
of "enclosing", but leaves behind a few like "enclosing function" and
"enclosing block".
Note this does create some "parent class" mentions for "adapt" and "var"
(the class they're within), which is maybe unfortunate, but we'd
probably say "base class" if we meant inheritance so perhaps that's
okay. Along the same lines, these are the only `parent_class` uses I see
now, and we do have a few `base_class`.
Use a level comparison during substitution to determine whether we're
substituting a particular binding. Evaluate symbolic bindings with the
same name and the same level to the same symbolic constant, for example
across redeclarations of a generic function.
In parse, form a list of methods that are defined inline, tracking where
they start, where they end, and which other inline methods are nested
within them.
In check, when we reach an inline method body, skip it and add it to a
worklist to be processed later. We also track when we reach the start
and end of a context in which inline method bodies are deferred, so that
we know when to replay the bodies.
When suspending a function definition to be processed later, the
`DeclNameStack` entry is moved to separate storage, including popping
the corresponding scopes from the scope stack and removing the
corresponding lexical names from lexical lookup. Later, when we return
to the function and parse its definition, the `DeclNameStack` entry is
restored. The same is done when we reach the end of a nested context
that can have inline methods, so that we can reenter the nested scope
before processing its members.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Jon Ross-PerkinsandRichard Smith
