dart2js cps: Add a pass for eliminating bounds checks.

pkg/compiler/lib/src/cps_ir/bounds_checker.dart

+// Copyright (c) 2015, the Dart project authors.  Please see the AUTHORS file
+// for details. All rights reserved. Use of this source code is governed by a
+// BSD-style license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
+
+library dart2js.cps_ir.bounds_checker;
+
+import 'cps_ir_nodes.dart';
+import 'optimizers.dart' show Pass;
+import 'octagon.dart';
+import '../constants/values.dart';
+import 'cps_fragment.dart';
+import 'type_mask_system.dart';
+import '../world.dart';
+import '../elements/elements.dart';
+
+/// Eliminates bounds checks when they can be proven safe.
+///
+/// In general, this pass will try to eliminate any branch with arithmetic
+/// in the condition, i.e. `x < y`, `x <= y`, `x == y` etc.
+///
+/// The analysis uses an [Octagon] abstract domain. Unlike traditional octagon
+/// analyzers, we do not use a closed matrix representation, but just maintain
+/// a bucket of constraints.  Constraints can therefore be added and removed
+/// on-the-fly without significant overhead.
+///
+/// We never copy the constraint system.  While traversing the IR, the
+/// constraint system is mutated to take into account the knowledge that is
+/// valid for the current location.  Constraints are added when entering a
+/// branch, for instance, and removed again after the branch has been processed.
+///
+/// Loops are analyzed in two passes. The first pass establishes monotonicity
+/// of loop variables, which the second pass uses to compute upper/lower bounds.
+/// The first pass also records whether any side effects occurred in the loop.
+///
+/// The two-pass scheme is suboptimal compared to a least fixed-point
+/// computation, but does not require repeated iteration.  Repeated iteration
+/// would be expensive, since we cannot perform a sparse analysis with our
+/// mutable octagon representation.
+class BoundsChecker extends RecursiveVisitor implements Pass {
+  String get passName => 'Bounds checker';
+
+  static const int MAX_UINT32 = (1 << 32) - 1;
+
+  /// All integers of this magnitude or less are representable as JS numbers.
+  static const int MAX_SAFE_INT = (1 << 53) - 1;
+
+  /// Marker to indicate that a continuation should get a unique effect number.
+  static const int NEW_EFFECT = -1;
+
+  final TypeMaskSystem types;
+  final World world;
+
+  /// Fields for the constraint system and its variables.
+  final Octagon octagon = new Octagon();
+  final Map<Primitive, SignedVariable> valueOf = {};
+  final Map<Primitive, Map<int, SignedVariable>> lengthOf = {};
+
+  /// Fields for the two-pass handling of loops.
+  final Set<Continuation> loopsWithSideEffects = new Set<Continuation>();
+  final Map<Parameter, Monotonicity> monotonicity = <Parameter, Monotonicity>{};
+  bool isStrongLoopPass;
+  bool foundLoop = false;
+
+  /// Fields for tracking side effects.
+  ///
+  /// The IR is divided into regions wherein the lengths of indexable objects
+  /// are known not to change. Regions are identified by their "effect number".
+  final Map<Continuation, int> effectNumberAt = <Continuation, int>{};
+  int currentEffectNumber = 0;
+  int effectNumberCounter = 0;
+
+  BoundsChecker(this.types, this.world);
+
+  void rewrite(FunctionDefinition node) {
+    isStrongLoopPass = false;
+    visit(node);
+    if (foundLoop) {
+      isStrongLoopPass = true;
+      effectNumberAt.clear();
+      visit(node);
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// ------------- VARIABLES -----------------
+
+  int makeNewEffect() => ++effectNumberCounter;
+
+  bool isInt(Primitive prim) {
+    return types.isDefinitelyInt(prim.type);
+  }
+
+  bool isUInt32(Primitive prim) {
+    return types.isDefinitelyUInt32(prim.type);
+  }
+
+  /// Get a constraint variable representing the numeric value of [number].
+  SignedVariable getValue(Primitive number) {
+    assert(isInt(number));
+    number = number.effectiveDefinition;
+    int min, max;
+    if (isUInt32(number)) {

[sra1, 2015/09/30 21:54:19]

Is there a benefit to matching JSPositiveInt too?

[asgerf, 2015/10/01 09:49:34]

Might as well match against it.

+      min = 0;
+      max = MAX_UINT32;
+    }
+    return valueOf.putIfAbsent(number, () => octagon.makeVariable(min, max));
+  }
+
+  /// Get a constraint variable representing the length of [indexableObject] at
+  /// program locations with the given [effectCounter].
+  SignedVariable getLength(Primitive indexableObject, int effectCounter) {
+    indexableObject = indexableObject.effectiveDefinition;
+    if (indexableObject.type != null &&
+        types.isDefinitelyFixedLengthIndexable(indexableObject.type)) {
+      // Always use the same effect counter if the length is immutable.
+      effectCounter = 0;
+    }
+    return lengthOf
+        .putIfAbsent(indexableObject, () => <int, SignedVariable>{})
+        .putIfAbsent(effectCounter, () => octagon.makeVariable(0, MAX_UINT32));
+  }
+
+  /// ------------- CONSTRAINT HELPERS -----------------

[sra1, 2015/09/30 21:54:19]

Use '//'.
This is a doc comment that applies to applyConstraint.

Ditto other section markers.

[asgerf, 2015/10/01 09:49:33]

Done.

+
+  // Puts the given constraint "in scope" by adding it to the octagon, and
+  // pushing a stack action that will remove it again.
+  void applyConstraint(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2, int k) {
+    Constraint constraint = new Constraint(v1, v2, k);
+    octagon.pushConstraint(constraint);
+    pushAction(() => octagon.popConstraint(constraint));
+  }
+
+  /// Return true if we can prove that `v1 + v2 <= k`.
+  bool testConstraint(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2, int k) {
+    // Add the negated constraint and check for solvability.
+    // !(v1 + v2 <= k)   <==>   -v1 - v2 <= -k-1
+    Constraint constraint = new Constraint(v1.negated, v2.negated, -k - 1);
+    octagon.pushConstraint(constraint);
+    bool answer = octagon.isUnsolvable;
+    octagon.popConstraint(constraint);
+    return answer;
+  }
+
+  void makeLessThanOrEqual(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2) {
+    // v1 <= v2   <==>   v1 - v2 <= 0
+    applyConstraint(v1, v2.negated, 0);
+  }
+
+  void makeLessThan(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2) {
+    // v1 < v2   <==>   v1 - v2 <= -1
+    applyConstraint(v1, v2.negated, -1);
+  }
+
+  void makeGreaterThanOrEqual(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2) {
+    // v1 >= v2   <==>   v2 - v1 <= 0
+    applyConstraint(v2, v1.negated, 0);
+  }
+
+  void makeGreaterThan(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2) {
+    // v1 > v2   <==>    v2 - v1 <= -1
+    applyConstraint(v2, v1.negated, -1);
+  }
+
+  void makeConstant(SignedVariable v1, int k) {
+    // We model this using the constraints:
+    //    v1 + v1 <=  2k
+    //   -v1 - v1 <= -2k
+    applyConstraint(v1, v1, 2 * k);
+    applyConstraint(v1.negated, v1.negated, -2 * k);
+  }
+
+  /// Make `v1 = v2 + k`.
+  void makeExactSum(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2, int k) {
+    applyConstraint(v1, v2.negated, k);
+    applyConstraint(v1.negated, v2, -k);
+  }
+
+  /// Make `v1 = v2 [+] k` where [+] represents floating-point addition.
+  void makeFloatingPointSum(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2, int k) {
+    if (isDefinitelyLessThanOrEqualToConstant(v2, MAX_SAFE_INT - k) &&
+        isDefinitelyGreaterThanOrEqualToConstant(v2, -MAX_SAFE_INT + k)) {
+      // The result is known to be in the 53-bit range, so no rounding occurs.
+      makeExactSum(v1, v2, k);
+    } else {
+      // A rounding error may occur, so the result may not be exactly v2 + k.
+      // We can still add monotonicity constraints:
+      //   adding a positive number cannot return a lesser number
+      //   adding a negative number cannot return a greater number
+      if (k >= 0) {
+        // v1 >= v2   <==>   v2 - v1 <= 0   <==>   -v1 + v2 <= 0
+        applyConstraint(v1.negated, v2, 0);
+      } else {
+        // v1 <= v2   <==>   v1 - v2 <= 0
+        applyConstraint(v1, v2.negated, 0);
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  void makeEqual(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2) {
+    // We model this using the constraints:
+    //    v1 <= v2   <==>   v1 - v2 <= 0
+    //    v1 >= v2   <==>   v2 - v1 <= 0
+    applyConstraint(v1, v2.negated, 0);
+    applyConstraint(v2, v1.negated, 0);
+  }
+
+  void makeNotEqual(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2) {
+    // The octagon cannot represent non-equality, but we can sharpen a weak
+    // inequality to a sharp one. If v1 and v2 are already known to be equal,
+    // this will create a contradiction and eliminate a dead branch.
+    // This is necessary for eliminating concurrent modification checks.
+    if (isDefinitelyLessThanOrEqualTo(v1, v2)) {
+      makeLessThan(v1, v2);
+    } else if (isDefinitelyGreaterThanOrEqualTo(v1, v2)) {
+      makeGreaterThan(v1, v2);
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// Return true if we can prove that `v1 <= v2`.
+  bool isDefinitelyLessThanOrEqualTo(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2) {
+    return testConstraint(v1, v2.negated, 0);
+  }
+
+  /// Return true if we can prove that `v1 >= v2`.
+  bool isDefinitelyGreaterThanOrEqualTo(SignedVariable v1, SignedVariable v2) {
+    return testConstraint(v2, v1.negated, 0);
+  }
+
+  bool isDefinitelyLessThanOrEqualToConstant(SignedVariable v1, int value) {
+    // v1 <= value   <==>   v1 + v1 <= 2 * value
+    return testConstraint(v1, v1, 2 * value);
+  }
+
+  bool isDefinitelyGreaterThanOrEqualToConstant(SignedVariable v1, int value) {
+    // v1 >= value   <==>   -v1 - v1 <= -2 * value
+    return testConstraint(v1.negated, v1.negated, -2 * value);
+  }
+
+  /// ------------- TAIL EXPRESSIONS -----------------
+
+  @override
+  void visitBranch(Branch node) {
+    Primitive condition = node.condition.definition;
+    Continuation trueCont = node.trueContinuation.definition;
+    Continuation falseCont = node.falseContinuation.definition;
+    effectNumberAt[trueCont] = currentEffectNumber;
+    effectNumberAt[falseCont] = currentEffectNumber;
+    pushAction(() {
+      // If the branching condition is known statically, either or both of the
+      // branch continuations will be replaced by Unreachable. Clean up the
+      // branch afterwards.
+      if (trueCont.body is Unreachable && falseCont.body is Unreachable) {
+        replaceExpression(node, new Unreachable());
+      } else if (trueCont.body is Unreachable) {
+        replaceExpression(
+            node, new InvokeContinuation(falseCont, <Parameter>[]));
+      } else if (falseCont.body is Unreachable) {
+        replaceExpression(
+            node, new InvokeContinuation(trueCont, <Parameter>[]));
+      }
+    });
+    void pushTrue(makeConstraint()) {
+      pushAction(() {
+        makeConstraint();
+        push(trueCont);
+      });
+    }
+    void pushFalse(makeConstraint()) {
+      pushAction(() {
+        makeConstraint();
+        push(falseCont);
+      });
+    }
+    if (condition is ApplyBuiltinOperator &&
+        condition.arguments.length == 2 &&
+        isInt(condition.arguments[0].definition) &&
+        isInt(condition.arguments[1].definition)) {
+      SignedVariable v1 = getValue(condition.arguments[0].definition);
+      SignedVariable v2 = getValue(condition.arguments[1].definition);
+      switch (condition.operator) {
+        case BuiltinOperator.NumLe:
+          pushTrue(() => makeLessThanOrEqual(v1, v2));
+          pushFalse(() => makeGreaterThan(v1, v2));
+          return;
+        case BuiltinOperator.NumLt:
+          pushTrue(() => makeLessThan(v1, v2));
+          pushFalse(() => makeGreaterThanOrEqual(v1, v2));
+          return;
+        case BuiltinOperator.NumGe:
+          pushTrue(() => makeGreaterThanOrEqual(v1, v2));
+          pushFalse(() => makeLessThan(v1, v2));
+          return;
+        case BuiltinOperator.NumGt:
+          pushTrue(() => makeGreaterThan(v1, v2));
+          pushFalse(() => makeLessThanOrEqual(v1, v2));
+          return;
+        case BuiltinOperator.StrictEq:
+          pushTrue(() => makeEqual(v1, v2));
+          pushFalse(() => makeNotEqual(v1, v2));
+          return;
+        case BuiltinOperator.StrictNeq:
+          pushTrue(() => makeNotEqual(v1, v2));
+          pushFalse(() => makeEqual(v1, v2));
+          return;
+        default:
+      }
+    }
+
+    push(trueCont);
+    push(falseCont);
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitConstant(Constant node) {
+    // TODO(asgerf): It might be faster to inline the constant in the
+    //               constraints that reference it.
+    if (node.value.isInt) {
+      IntConstantValue constant = node.value;
+      makeConstant(getValue(node), constant.primitiveValue);
+    }
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitApplyBuiltinOperator(ApplyBuiltinOperator node) {
+    if (node.operator != BuiltinOperator.NumAdd &&
+        node.operator != BuiltinOperator.NumSubtract) {
+      return;
+    }
+    if (!isInt(node.arguments[0].definition) ||
+        !isInt(node.arguments[1].definition)) {
+      return;
+    }
+    // We have `v1 = v2 +/- v3`, but the octagon cannot represent constraints
+    // involving more than two variables. Check if one operand is a constant.
+    int getConstantArgument(int n) {
+      Primitive prim = node.arguments[n].definition;
+      if (prim is Constant && prim.value.isInt) {
+        IntConstantValue constant = prim.value;
+        return constant.primitiveValue;
+      }
+      return null;
+    }
+    int constant = getConstantArgument(0);
+    int operandIndex = 1;
+    if (constant == null) {
+      constant = getConstantArgument(1);
+      operandIndex = 0;
+    }
+    if (constant == null) {
+      // Neither argument was a constant.
+      // Classical octagon-based analyzers would compute upper and lower bounds
+      // for the two operands and add constraints for the result based on
+      // those.  For performance reasons we omit that.
+      // TODO(asgerf): It seems expensive, but we should evaluate it.
+      return;
+    }
+    SignedVariable v1 = getValue(node);
+    SignedVariable v2 = getValue(node.arguments[operandIndex].definition);
+
+    if (node.operator == BuiltinOperator.NumAdd) {
+      // v1 = v2 + const
+      makeFloatingPointSum(v1, v2, constant);
+    } else if (operandIndex == 0) {
+      // v1 = v2 - const
+      makeFloatingPointSum(v1, v2, -constant);
+    } else {
+      // v1 = const - v2   <==>   v1 = (-v2) + const
+      makeFloatingPointSum(v1, v2.negated, constant);
+    }
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitGetLength(GetLength node) {
+    valueOf[node] = getLength(node.object.definition, currentEffectNumber);
+  }
+
+  void analyzeLoopEntry(InvokeContinuation node) {
+    foundLoop = true;
+    Continuation cont = node.continuation.definition;
+    if (isStrongLoopPass) {
+      for (int i = 0; i < node.arguments.length; ++i) {
+        Parameter param = cont.parameters[i];
+        if (!isInt(param)) continue;
+        Primitive initialValue = node.arguments[i].definition;
+        SignedVariable initialVariable = getValue(initialValue);
+        Monotonicity mono = monotonicity[param];
+        if (mono == null) {
+          // Value never changes. This is extremely uncommon.
+          initialValue.substituteFor(param);
+        } else if (mono == Monotonicity.Increasing) {
+          makeGreaterThanOrEqual(getValue(param), initialVariable);
+        } else if (mono == Monotonicity.Decreasing) {
+          makeLessThanOrEqual(getValue(param), initialVariable);
+        }
+      }
+      if (loopsWithSideEffects.contains(cont)) {
+        currentEffectNumber = makeNewEffect();
+      }
+    } else {
+      // During the weak pass, conservatively make a new effect number in the
+      // loop body. This may be strengthened during the strong pass.
+      currentEffectNumber = effectNumberAt[cont] = makeNewEffect();
+    }
+    push(cont);
+  }
+
+  void analyzeLoopContinue(InvokeContinuation node) {
+    Continuation cont = node.continuation.definition;
+
+    // During the strong loop phase, there is no need to compute monotonicity,
+    // and we already put bounds on the loop variables when we went into the
+    // loop.
+    if (isStrongLoopPass) return;
+
+    // For each loop parameter, try to prove that the new value is definitely
+    // less/greater than its old value. When we fail to prove this, update the
+    // monotonicity flag accordingly.
+    for (int i = 0; i < node.arguments.length; ++i) {
+      Parameter param = cont.parameters[i];
+      if (!isInt(param)) continue;
+      SignedVariable arg = getValue(node.arguments[i].definition);
+      SignedVariable paramVar = getValue(param);
+      if (!isDefinitelyLessThanOrEqualTo(arg, paramVar)) {
+        // We couldn't prove that the value does not increase, so assume
+        // henceforth that it might be increasing.
+        markMonotonicity(cont.parameters[i], Monotonicity.Increasing);
+      }
+      if (!isDefinitelyGreaterThanOrEqualTo(arg, paramVar)) {
+        // We couldn't prove that the value does not decrease, so assume
+        // henceforth that it might be decrease.
+        markMonotonicity(cont.parameters[i], Monotonicity.Decreasing);
+      }
+    }
+
+    // If a side effect has occurred between the entry and continue, mark
+    // the loop as having side effects.
+    if (currentEffectNumber != effectNumberAt[cont]) {
+      loopsWithSideEffects.add(cont);
+    }
+  }
+
+  void markMonotonicity(Parameter param, Monotonicity mono) {
+    Monotonicity current = monotonicity[param];
+    if (current == null) {
+      monotonicity[param] = mono;
+    } else if (current != mono) {
+      monotonicity[param] = Monotonicity.NotMonotone;
+    }
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitInvokeContinuation(InvokeContinuation node) {
+    Continuation cont = node.continuation.definition;
+    if (node.isRecursive) {
+      analyzeLoopContinue(node);
+    } else if (cont.isRecursive) {
+      analyzeLoopEntry(node);
+    } else {
+      int effect = effectNumberAt[cont];
+      if (effect == null) {
+        effectNumberAt[cont] = currentEffectNumber;
+      } else if (effect != currentEffectNumber && effect != NEW_EFFECT) {
+        effectNumberAt[cont] = NEW_EFFECT;
+      }
+      // TODO(asgerf): Compute join for parameters to increase precision?
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// ---------------- CALL EXPRESSIONS --------------------
+
+  @override
+  void visitInvokeMethod(InvokeMethod node) {
+    // TODO(asgerf): What we really need is a "changes length" side effect flag.

[sra1, 2015/09/30 21:54:20]

More than that - with aliases so a.add(b[i]) does not kill b.length.

[asgerf, 2015/10/01 09:49:33]

Absolutely. I just wanted to clarify why we are using the "changes index" flag.

+    if (world
+        .getSideEffectsOfSelector(node.selector, node.mask)
+        .changesIndex()) {
+      currentEffectNumber = makeNewEffect();
+    }
+    push(node.continuation.definition);
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitInvokeStatic(InvokeStatic node) {
+    if (world.getSideEffectsOfElement(node.target).changesIndex()) {
+      currentEffectNumber = makeNewEffect();
+    }
+    push(node.continuation.definition);
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitInvokeMethodDirectly(InvokeMethodDirectly node) {
+    FunctionElement target = node.target;
+    if (target is ConstructorBodyElement) {
+      ConstructorBodyElement body = target;
+      target = body.constructor;
+    }
+    if (world.getSideEffectsOfElement(target).changesIndex()) {
+      currentEffectNumber = makeNewEffect();
+    }
+    push(node.continuation.definition);
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitInvokeConstructor(InvokeConstructor node) {
+    if (world.getSideEffectsOfElement(node.target).changesIndex()) {
+      currentEffectNumber = makeNewEffect();
+    }
+    push(node.continuation.definition);
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitTypeCast(TypeCast node) {
+    push(node.continuation.definition);
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitGetLazyStatic(GetLazyStatic node) {
+    // TODO(asgerf): How do we get the side effects of a lazy field initializer?
+    currentEffectNumber = makeNewEffect();
+    push(node.continuation.definition);
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitForeignCode(ForeignCode node) {
+    if (node.nativeBehavior.sideEffects.changesIndex()) {
+      currentEffectNumber = makeNewEffect();
+    }
+    push(node.continuation.definition);
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitAwait(Await node) {
+    currentEffectNumber = makeNewEffect();
+    push(node.continuation.definition);
+  }
+
+  /// ---------------- PRIMITIVES --------------------
+
+  @override
+  void visitApplyBuiltinMethod(ApplyBuiltinMethod node) {
+    Primitive receiver = node.receiver.definition;
+    int effectBefore = currentEffectNumber;
+    currentEffectNumber = makeNewEffect();
+    int effectAfter = currentEffectNumber;
+    SignedVariable lengthBefore = getLength(receiver, effectBefore);
+    SignedVariable lengthAfter = getLength(receiver, effectAfter);
+    switch (node.method) {
+      case BuiltinMethod.Push:
+        // after = before + count
+        int count = node.arguments.length;
+        makeExactSum(lengthAfter, lengthBefore, count);
+        break;
+
+      case BuiltinMethod.Pop:
+        // after = before - 1
+        makeExactSum(lengthAfter, lengthBefore, -1);
+        break;
+    }
+  }
+
+  @override
+  void visitLiteralList(LiteralList node) {
+    makeConstant(getLength(node, currentEffectNumber), node.values.length);
+  }
+
+  /// ---------------- INTERIOR EXPRESSIONS --------------------
+
+  @override
+  Expression traverseContinuation(Continuation cont) {
+    if (octagon.isUnsolvable) {
+      RemovalVisitor.remove(cont.body);
+      cont.body = new Unreachable();
+    } else {
+      int effect = effectNumberAt[cont];
+      if (effect != null) {
+        currentEffectNumber = effect == NEW_EFFECT ? makeNewEffect() : effect;
+      }
+    }
+    return cont.body;
+  }
+
+  @override
+  Expression traverseLetCont(LetCont node) {
+    // Join continuations should be pushed at declaration-site, so all their
+    // call sites are seen before they are analyzed.
+    // Other continuations are pushed at the use site.
+    for (Continuation cont in node.continuations) {
+      if (cont.hasAtLeastOneUse &&
+          !cont.isRecursive &&
+          cont.firstRef.parent is InvokeContinuation) {
+        push(cont);
+      }
+    }
+    return node.body;
+  }
+}
+
+/// Lattice representing the known monotonicity of a loop variable.
+///
+/// The lattice bottom is represented by `null` and represents the case where
+/// the loop variable never changes value during the loop.

[sra1, 2015/09/30 21:54:19]

These are weak monotonicity, not strict, right?

[asgerf, 2015/10/01 09:49:33]

Yes. Clarified in the comment.

+enum Monotonicity { NotMonotone, Increasing, Decreasing, }