First shot at static type propagation and type test elimination.

runtime/vm/intermediate_language.cc

 // Copyright (c) 2012, 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.
 
 #include "vm/intermediate_language.h"
 
 #include "vm/bit_vector.h"
 #include "vm/object.h"
 #include "vm/os.h"
 #include "vm/scopes.h"
@@ skipping 270 matching lines @@
   // nonoptimizing compiler.
   ASSERT(true_successor_ != NULL);
   ASSERT(false_successor_ != NULL);
   false_successor_->DiscoverBlocks(current_block, preorder, postorder, parent,
                                    assigned_vars, variable_count);
   true_successor_->DiscoverBlocks(current_block, preorder, postorder, parent,
                                   assigned_vars, variable_count);
 }
 
 
+// ==== Support for propagating static type.
+RawAbstractType* ConstantVal::StaticType() const {
+  if (value().IsInstance()) {
+    Instance& instance = Instance::Handle();
+    instance ^= value().raw();
+    return instance.GetType();
+  } else {
+    UNREACHABLE();
+    return Type::VoidType();
+  }
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* UseVal::StaticType() const {
+  return definition()->StaticType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* AssertAssignableComp::StaticType() const {
+  return dst_type().raw();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* AssertBooleanComp::StaticType() const {
+  return Type::BoolInterface();

[srdjan, 2012/05/16 20:16:15]

Bool class instead of interface type? It probably does not matter since the bool
interface/class is a 1:1 relationship.

[regis, 2012/05/16 23:20:37]

Yes, I think it does not matter.

+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* CurrentContextComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();

[srdjan, 2012/05/16 20:16:15]

Maybe it would be better to remove UNREACHABLE's and return DynamicType instead?

[regis, 2012/05/16 23:20:37]

As we discussed, I am now returning AbstractType::null()

+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* StoreContextComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* ClosureCallComp::StaticType() const {
+  // The closure is the first argument to the call.
+  const AbstractType& function_type =
+      AbstractType::Handle(ArgumentAt(0)->StaticType());
+  if (function_type.IsDynamicType() || function_type.IsFunctionInterface()) {
+    // The function type is not statically known or simply Function.
+    return Type::DynamicType();

[srdjan, 2012/05/16 20:16:15]

In the context of static type check elimination a dynamic type means an unknown
type, i.e., it can be anything.

[regis, 2012/05/16 23:20:37]

Correct.

+  }
+  const Class& signature_class = Class::Handle(function_type.type_class());
+  ASSERT(signature_class.IsSignatureClass());
+  const Function& signature_function =
+      Function::Handle(signature_class.signature_function());
+  // TODO(regis): The result type may be generic.
+  return signature_function.result_type();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* InstanceCallComp::StaticType() const {
+  return Type::DynamicType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* StaticCallComp::StaticType() const {
+  return function().result_type();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* LoadLocalComp::StaticType() const {
+  return local().type().raw();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* StoreLocalComp::StaticType() const {
+  return value()->StaticType();

[srdjan, 2012/05/16 20:16:15]

If value()->StaticType() is Dynamic (unknown), then you could return
local().type().raw() instead.

[regis, 2012/05/16 23:20:37]

Done.

+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* StrictCompareComp::StaticType() const {
+  return Type::BoolInterface();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* EqualityCompareComp::StaticType() const {
+  return Type::BoolInterface();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* NativeCallComp::StaticType() const {
+  // The result type of the native function is not known.

[srdjan, 2012/05/16 20:16:15]

It could be probable computed, as it is known as compile time.

[regis, 2012/05/16 23:20:37]

It is actually the result type of the enclosing native Dart function. Can we
trust the native call? Added TODO.

+  return Type::DynamicType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* StoreIndexedComp::StaticType() const {
+  return value()->StaticType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* InstanceSetterComp::StaticType() const {
+  // TODO(regis): Would it be correct to return value()->StaticType()?
+  return Type::DynamicType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* StaticSetterComp::StaticType() const {
+  // TODO(regis): Would it be correct/better to return value()->StaticType()?
+  return setter_function().result_type();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* LoadInstanceFieldComp::StaticType() const {
+  return field().type();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* StoreInstanceFieldComp::StaticType() const {
+  return value()->StaticType();

[srdjan, 2012/05/16 20:16:15]

And if value's type is unknown, return field's type.

[regis, 2012/05/16 23:20:37]

Done.

+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* LoadStaticFieldComp::StaticType() const {
+  return field().type();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* StoreStaticFieldComp::StaticType() const {
+  return value()->StaticType();

[srdjan, 2012/05/16 20:16:15]

And if value's type is unknown, return field's type.

[regis, 2012/05/16 23:20:37]

Done.

+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* BooleanNegateComp::StaticType() const {
+  return Type::BoolInterface();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* InstanceOfComp::StaticType() const {
+  return Type::BoolInterface();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* CreateArrayComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* CreateClosureComp::StaticType() const {
+  const Function& fun = function();
+  const Class& signature_class = Class::Handle(fun.signature_class());
+  // TODO(regis): Can we take (constant) type_arguments() into consideration?
+  // For now, we return Dynamic (no type test elimination) if the signature
+  // class is parameterized, or a non-parameterized finalized type otherwise.
+  if (signature_class.HasTypeArguments()) {
+    return Type::DynamicType();
+  }
+  // Make sure we use the canonical signature class.
+  const Type& type = Type::Handle(signature_class.SignatureType());
+  const Class& canonical_signature_class = Class::Handle(type.type_class());
+  return Type::NewNonParameterizedType(canonical_signature_class);
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* AllocateObjectComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();

[srdjan, 2012/05/16 20:16:15]

For each UNREACHABLE, shouldn't return be DynamicType (unknown), in case we have
to enable it?

[regis, 2012/05/16 23:20:37]

As explained above, I want to catch wrong requests for static type. I am now
using null instead of void.

+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* AllocateObjectWithBoundsCheckComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* NativeLoadFieldComp::StaticType() const {
+  ASSERT(!type().IsNull());
+  return type().raw();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* NativeStoreFieldComp::StaticType() const {
+  return value()->StaticType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* InstantiateTypeArgumentsComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* ExtractConstructorTypeArgumentsComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* ExtractConstructorInstantiatorComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* AllocateContextComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* ChainContextComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* CloneContextComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
+RawAbstractType* CatchEntryComp::StaticType() const {
+  UNREACHABLE();
+  return Type::VoidType();
+}
+
+
 }  // namespace dart