This repository holds the source code of the prototype developed during the master's thesis Automatic Refactoring for Parallelization. There are no plans to continue development of this refactoring tool at this time. The code of the analysis itself is located in the src/ folder (the RefactorToParallel.Analysis project). The samples/ folder holds a small project to demonstrate the refactoring provided by the prototype. For a quick demo, both a NuGet package and a Visual Studio Extension can be found on the releases page.

The prototype incorporates implementations of various static code analyses such as Alias Analysis (interprocedural), Available Expressions Analysis, Loop Dependence Analysis (interprocedural, this thesis), and Reaching Definitions Analysis. Since some analyses profit from optimizations, the prototype also incorporates implementations of the Common Subexpression Elimination and Copy Propagation optimizations.

The following list is a summary of improvements that could be applied to the code:

• Use Roslyn's cancellation token more thoroughly.
• Use symbols in the intermediate representation instead of the identifiers.
• Possibly use dedicated classes to represent 3AC instruction to reflect the simplifications instead of re-using the classes of the original IR.
• Correctly transform the compound assignment operators such as += when generating the IR. Although, it is not relevant for the correctness of the prototype.
• The implementations of the interprocedural analyses have transfer-functions that apply special state operations when transferring from and to an invoked method to avoid variable name conflicts between methods. A switch to symbols for variables instead of identifiers should make this obsolete.
• Generate and optimize the IR of the methods lazily instead of eagerly.
• Replace string based type-assertions with checks that are based on Compilation.GetTypeByMetadataName.

The prototype is a static code analyzer available as a Visual Studio Plugin as well as a NuGet package. Its only dependency is the .NET Compiler Platform (Roslyn) which is used to analyze arbitrary C# code. The Visual Studio integration allows just-in-time code analysis and automatically reports for loops that can be refactored to their Parallel.For counterpart safely. The following screenshot illustrates how the prototype informs about the parallelization opportunity including a preview of the code changes.

In the upcoming Section 2.1, the steps the prototype uses for its analysis are explained.

The prototype was designed in a way that the different parts (or steps) of the analysis are not crucial for the implementation and can be added gradually. This design choice was also the primary reason not to use an IR in the SSA form.

The image below sketches the steps of the final implementation. First of all, the prototype collects the available methods and for loops. Currently, the prototype only collects loops doing a single-step increment. Next, the body of the loop is transformed into an intermediate representation. During this conversion, the responsible unit also applies various semantic proofs. Then, the IR is transformed into a three-address code and optimized. Out of the optimized three-address code, the prototype creates a call graph which links method invocations with the corresponding control flow graph. Last but not least, it analyzes the optimized three-address code and reports parallelization opportunities back to Roslyn.

In the next sections, Section 2.2 introduces the intermediate representation and three-address code used internally to apply the analysis and Section 2.3 the respective semantic proofs. Section 2.4 provides a short overview of the applied optimizations. Ultimately, Section 2.5 describes the application of the alias analysis and how the interprocedural analysis is achieved.

The reasons for the transformation of the C# code into a three-address code are self-explanatory. For example, the subsequent steps do not have to deal with possibly nested expressions and high-level language features in general. Furthermore, it increases the influence of the optimization step. Due to its simplicity, the generation of the control flow graph is straightforward as it only needs to connect the subsequent instructions and the jump instructions with their target label. The next image illustrates the original C# code, the intermediate representation, and the generated three-address code. As (c) depicts, the prototype generates variables with a leading $. This symbol is used because it is an illegal symbol for identifiers in C# and thus the names of the generated variables cannot conflict with the existing. Of course, unsupported language features will cancel any further analysis of the loop.

The use of methods by the .NET framework that are considered safe is supported. Ensuring that a method is allowed happens during the IR generation process. First of all, it checks if the method is static. If that is the case, it verifies that the containing type is on the list of supported types like System.Math. Finally, it ensures that all of the parameters have primitive types, are not arrays, and have no side-effects.

The semantic proofs are checks that make use of the semantic model provided by Roslyn. That is why the semantic proofs are made upon the original C# code. The application happens during the conversion to the IR because it is both, unnecessary to check inconvertible code as well as continue conversion if the semantics denote non-parallelizable code.

One semantic proof ensures that the element access operator is used solely for arrays. Because operator overloading requires the support for object creations and an inter-document analysis in most cases, another semantic proof prevents the use of such. Another important check is the prevention of variable shadowing. The reason for this semantic proof is that the analysis internally only works with string-based representations of variables.

Upon the three-address code, the prototype runs five optimization iterations at most. This number appears to be sufficient since none of the reviewed codes required more iterations. Nevertheless, a smaller iteration maximum could be adequate too. The optimizations include a copy propagation and a common sub-expression elimination.

The common sub-expression elimination has been further extended to automatically eliminate multiple invocations of the same method having the same arguments. Because of the design¹ and the context-freeness of the interprocedural analysis, this extension improves the results significantly. However, this is only valid due to the restrictions on the invoked methods. For instance, a method may not access array instances which are not passed as an argument. Moreover, methods may not have any side-effects except for write-accesses to arrays.

Besides the loop dependence analysis to identify array intersections, the prototype employs an alias analysis. This analysis is used to identify aliasing of arrays inside the currently analyzed for loop. However, arrays may already alias each other outside of the loop. Therefore, the prototype also identifies possible aliasing of arrays outside of the loop. To do so, it conservatively proofs that array variables may not alias each other with the application of different rules. For example, if arrays have different dimensions² or incompatible types. If it fails to disprove the possible aliasing, the worst-case scenario is assumed, this means it is assumed that the arrays alias.

Both analyses -the loop dependence and alias- support an interprocedural analysis of the code. However, the interprocedural analysis is only context-free. Moreover, only non-virtual methods without overloads are supported at this time. To achieve the interprocedural analysis, the control flow graph of the loop's body is connected to the invoked methods to form one large control flow graph. Nevertheless, the necessary call graph edges are processed separately so the control flow graphs of the method bodies can be re-used across all present loops.

1. Due to the late expansion to an interprocedural analysis, it was implemented in a way it does not require cross-cutting changes to the existing code base.
2. The prototype does not support jagged arrays. This feature would require a proof that all array elements are distinct. The same would apply to objects if member-accesses were supported.