This patch accompanies the RFC posted here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-October/127239.html
This patch adds a new CallBr IR instruction to support asm-goto
inline assembly like gcc as used by the linux kernel. This
instruction is both a call instruction and a terminator
instruction with multiple successors. Only inline assembly
usage is supported today.
This also adds a new INLINEASM_BR opcode to SelectionDAG and
MachineIR to represent an INLINEASM block that is also
considered a terminator instruction.
There will likely be more bug fixes and optimizations to follow
this, but we felt it had reached a point where we would like to
switch to an incremental development model.
Patch by Craig Topper, Alexander Ivchenko, Mikhail Dvoretckii
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53765
llvm-svn: 353563
Add an intrinsic that takes 2 unsigned integers with the scale of them
provided as the third argument and performs fixed point multiplication on
them.
This is a part of implementing fixed point arithmetic in clang where some of
the more complex operations will be implemented as intrinsics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55625
llvm-svn: 353059
This is meant to be used with clang's __builtin_dynamic_object_size.
When 'true' is passed to this parameter, the intrinsic has the
potential to be folded into instructions that will be evaluated
at run time. When 'false', the objectsize intrinsic behaviour is
unchanged.
rdar://32212419
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56761
llvm-svn: 352664
Summary:
UBSan wants to detect when unreachable code is actually reached, so it
adds instrumentation before every `unreachable` instruction. However,
the optimizer will remove code after calls to functions marked with
`noreturn`. To avoid this UBSan removes `noreturn` from both the call
instruction as well as from the function itself. Unfortunately, ASan
relies on this annotation to unpoison the stack by inserting calls to
`_asan_handle_no_return` before `noreturn` functions. This is important
for functions that do not return but access the the stack memory, e.g.,
unwinder functions *like* `longjmp` (`longjmp` itself is actually
"double-proofed" via its interceptor). The result is that when ASan and
UBSan are combined, the `noreturn` attributes are missing and ASan
cannot unpoison the stack, so it has false positives when stack
unwinding is used.
Changes:
# UBSan now adds the `expect_noreturn` attribute whenever it removes
the `noreturn` attribute from a function
# ASan additionally checks for the presence of this attribute
Generated code:
```
call void @__asan_handle_no_return // Additionally inserted to avoid false positives
call void @longjmp
call void @__asan_handle_no_return
call void @__ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable
unreachable
```
The second call to `__asan_handle_no_return` is redundant. This will be
cleaned up in a follow-up patch.
rdar://problem/40723397
Reviewers: delcypher, eugenis
Tags: #sanitizers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56624
llvm-svn: 352003
This broke the RISCV build, and even with that fixed, one of the RISCV
tests behaves surprisingly differently with asserts than without,
leaving there no clear test pattern to use. Generally it seems bad for
hte IR to differ substantially due to asserts (as in, an alloca is used
with asserts that isn't needed without!) and nothing I did simply would
fix it so I'm reverting back to green.
This also required reverting the RISCV build fix in r351782.
llvm-svn: 351796
Specifically, clarify the following:
1. Volatile load and store may access addresses that are not memory.
2. Volatile load and store do not modify arbitrary memory.
3. Volatile load and store do not trap.
Prompted by recent volatile discussion on llvmdev.
Currently, there's sort of a split in the source code about whether
volatile operations are allowed to trap; this resolves that dispute in
favor of not allowing them to trap.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53184
llvm-svn: 351772
An abstract call site is a wrapper that allows to treat direct,
indirect, and callback calls the same. If an abstract call site
represents a direct or indirect call site it behaves like a stripped
down version of a normal call site object. The abstract call site can
also represent a callback call, thus the fact that the initially
called function (=broker) may invoke a third one (=callback callee).
In this case, the abstract call side hides the middle man, hence the
broker function. The result is a representation of the callback call,
inside the broker, but in the context of the original instruction that
invoked the broker.
Again, there are up to three functions involved when we talk about
callback call sites. The caller (1), which invokes the broker
function. The broker function (2), that may or may not invoke the
callback callee. And finally the callback callee (3), which is the
target of the callback call.
The abstract call site will handle the mapping from parameters to
arguments depending on the semantic of the broker function. However,
it is important to note that the mapping is often partial. Thus, some
arguments of the call/invoke instruction are mapped to parameters of
the callee while others are not. At the same time, arguments of the
callback callee might be unknown, thus "null" if queried.
This patch introduces also !callback metadata which describe how a
callback broker maps from parameters to arguments. This metadata is
directly created by clang for known broker functions, provided through
source code attributes by the user, or later deduced by analyses.
For motivation and additional information please see the corresponding
talk (slides/video)
https://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-10/talk-abstracts.html#talk20
as well as the LCPC paper
http://compilers.cs.uni-saarland.de/people/doerfert/par_opt_lcpc18.pdf
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54498
llvm-svn: 351627
The current llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access metadata has a problem in that
it uses LoopIDs. LoopID unfortunately is not loop identifier. It is
neither unique (there's even a regression test assigning the some LoopID
to multiple loops; can otherwise happen if passes such as LoopVersioning
make copies of entire loops) nor persistent (every time a property is
removed/added from a LoopID's MDNode, it will also receive a new LoopID;
this happens e.g. when calling Loop::setLoopAlreadyUnrolled()).
Since most loop transformation passes change the loop attributes (even
if it just to mark that a loop should not be processed again as
llvm.loop.isvectorized does, for the versioned and unversioned loop),
the parallel access information is lost for any subsequent pass.
This patch unlinks LoopIDs and parallel accesses.
llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access metadata on instruction is replaced by
llvm.access.group metadata. llvm.access.group points to a distinct
MDNode with no operands (avoiding the problem to ever need to add/remove
operands), called "access group". Alternatively, it can point to a list
of access groups. The LoopID then has an attribute
llvm.loop.parallel_accesses with all the access groups that are parallel
(no dependencies carries by this loop).
This intentionally avoid any kind of "ID". Loops that are clones/have
their attributes modifies retain the llvm.loop.parallel_accesses
attribute. Access instructions that a cloned point to the same access
group. It is not necessary for each access to have it's own "ID" MDNode,
but those memory access instructions with the same behavior can be
grouped together.
The behavior of llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access is not changed by this
patch, but should be considered deprecated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52116
llvm-svn: 349725
When multiple loop transformation are defined in a loop's metadata, their order of execution is defined by the order of their respective passes in the pass pipeline. For instance, e.g.
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
is the same as
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
and will try to loop-distribute before Unroll-And-Jam because the LoopDistribute pass is scheduled after UnrollAndJam pass. UnrollAndJamPass only supports one inner loop, i.e. it will necessarily fail after loop distribution. It is not possible to specify another execution order. Also,t the order of passes in the pipeline is subject to change between versions of LLVM, optimization options and which pass manager is used.
This patch adds 'followup' attributes to various loop transformation passes. These attributes define which attributes the resulting loop of a transformation should have. For instance,
!0 = !{!0, !1, !2}
!1 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.enable"}
!2 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.followup_inner", !3}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.distribute.enable"}
defines a loop ID (!0) to be unrolled-and-jammed (!1) and then the attribute !3 to be added to the jammed inner loop, which contains the instruction to distribute the inner loop.
Currently, in both pass managers, pass execution is in a fixed order and UnrollAndJamPass will not execute again after LoopDistribute. We hope to fix this in the future by allowing pass managers to run passes until a fixpoint is reached, use Polly to perform these transformations, or add a loop transformation pass which takes the order issue into account.
For mandatory/forced transformations (e.g. by having been declared by #pragma omp simd), the user must be notified when a transformation could not be performed. It is not possible that the responsible pass emits such a warning because the transformation might be 'hidden' in a followup attribute when it is executed, or it is not present in the pipeline at all. For this reason, this patche introduces a WarnMissedTransformations pass, to warn about orphaned transformations.
Since this changes the user-visible diagnostic message when a transformation is applied, two test cases in the clang repository need to be updated.
To ensure that no other transformation is executed before the intended one, the attribute `llvm.loop.disable_nonforced` can be added which should disable transformation heuristics before the intended transformation is applied. E.g. it would be surprising if a loop is distributed before a #pragma unroll_and_jam is applied.
With more supported code transformations (loop fusion, interchange, stripmining, offloading, etc.), transformations can be used as building blocks for more complex transformations (e.g. stripmining+stripmining+interchange -> tiling).
Reviewed By: hfinkel, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49281
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55288
llvm-svn: 348944
Add an intrinsic that takes 2 signed integers with the scale of them provided
as the third argument and performs fixed point multiplication on them.
This is a part of implementing fixed point arithmetic in clang where some of
the more complex operations will be implemented as intrinsics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54719
llvm-svn: 348912
This patch introduces a new instinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable_condition`
that allows explicit representation for guards. It is an alternative to using
`@llvm.experimental.guard` intrinsic that does not contain implicit control flow.
We keep finding places where `@llvm.experimental.guard` is not supported or
treated too conservatively, and there are 2 reasons to that:
- `@llvm.experimental.guard` has memory write side effect to model implicit control flow,
and this sometimes confuses passes and analyzes that work with memory;
- Not all passes and analysis are aware of the semantics of guards. These passes treat them
as regular throwing call and have no idea that the condition of guard may be used to prove
something. One well-known place which had caused us troubles in the past is explicit loop
iteration count calculation in SCEV. Another example is new loop unswitching which is not
aware of guards. Whenever a new pass appears, we potentially have this problem there.
Rather than go and fix all these places (and commit to keep track of them and add support
in future), it seems more reasonable to leverage the existing optimizer's logic as much as possible.
The only significant difference between guards and regular explicit branches is that guard's condition
can be widened. It means that a guard contains (explicitly or implicitly) a `deopt` block successor,
and it is always legal to go there no matter what the guard condition is. The other successor is
a guarded block, and it is only legal to go there if the condition is true.
This patch introduces a new explicit form of guards alternative to `@llvm.experimental.guard`
intrinsic. Now a widenable guard can be represented in the CFG explicitly like this:
%widenable_condition = call i1 @llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()
%new_condition = and i1 %cond, %widenable_condition
br i1 %new_condition, label %guarded, label %deopt
guarded:
; Guarded instructions
deopt:
call type @llvm.experimental.deoptimize(<args...>) [ "deopt"(<deopt_args...>) ]
The new intrinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition` has semantics of an
`undef`, but the intrinsic prevents the optimizer from folding it early. This form
should exploit all optimization boons provided to `br` instuction, and it still can be
widened by replacing the result of `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()`
with `and` with any arbitrary boolean value (as long as the branch that is taken when
it is `false` has a deopt and has no side-effects).
For more motivation, please check llvm-dev discussion "[llvm-dev] Giving up using
implicit control flow in guards".
This patch introduces this new intrinsic with respective LangRef changes and a pass
that converts old-style guards (expressed as intrinsics) into the new form.
The naming discussion is still ungoing. Merging this to unblock further items. We can
later change the name of this intrinsic.
Reviewed By: reames, fedor.sergeev, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51207
llvm-svn: 348593
Summary:
Resubmit this with no changes because I think the build was broken
by a different diff.
-----
The prior diff had to be reverted because there were two tests
that failed. I updated the two tests in this diff
clang/test/Misc/pragma-attribute-supported-attributes-list.test
clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-speculative-load-hardening.cpp
----- Summary from Previous Diff (Still Accurate) -----
LLVM IR already has an attribute for speculative_load_hardening. Before
this commit, when a user passed the -mspeculative-load-hardening flag to
Clang, every function would have this attribute added to it. This Clang
attribute will allow users to opt into SLH on a function by function basis.
This can be applied to functions and Objective C methods.
Reviewers: chandlerc, echristo, kristof.beyls, aaron.ballman
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54915
llvm-svn: 347701
until I figure out why the build is failing or timing out
***************************
Summary:
The prior diff had to be reverted because there were two tests
that failed. I updated the two tests in this diff
clang/test/Misc/pragma-attribute-supported-attributes-list.test
clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-speculative-load-hardening.cpp
LLVM IR already has an attribute for speculative_load_hardening. Before
this commit, when a user passed the -mspeculative-load-hardening flag to
Clang, every function would have this attribute added to it. This Clang
attribute will allow users to opt into SLH on a function by function
basis.
This can be applied to functions and Objective C methods.
Reviewers: chandlerc, echristo, kristof.beyls, aaron.ballman
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54915
This reverts commit a5b3c232d1e3613f23efbc3960f8e23ea70f2a79.
(r347617)
llvm-svn: 347628
Summary:
The prior diff had to be reverted because there were two tests
that failed. I updated the two tests in this diff
clang/test/Misc/pragma-attribute-supported-attributes-list.test
clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-speculative-load-hardening.cpp
----- Summary from Previous Diff (Still Accurate) -----
LLVM IR already has an attribute for speculative_load_hardening. Before
this commit, when a user passed the -mspeculative-load-hardening flag to
Clang, every function would have this attribute added to it. This Clang
attribute will allow users to opt into SLH on a function by function basis.
This can be applied to functions and Objective C methods.
Reviewers: chandlerc, echristo, kristof.beyls, aaron.ballman
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54915
llvm-svn: 347617
Summary:
LLVM IR already has an attribute for speculative_load_hardening. Before
this commit, when a user passed the -mspeculative-load-hardening flag to
Clang, every function would have this attribute added to it. This Clang
attribute will allow users to opt into SLH on a function by function basis.
This can be applied to functions and Objective C methods.
Reviewers: chandlerc, echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54555
llvm-svn: 347586
A call to @llvm.trap can be expected to be cold (i.e. unlikely to be
reached in a normal program execution).
Outlining paths which unconditionally trap is an important memory
saving. As the hot/cold splitting pass (imho) should not treat all
noreturn calls as cold, explicitly mark @llvm.trap cold so that it can
be outlined.
Split out of https://reviews.llvm.org/D54244.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54329
llvm-svn: 346885
This adds the llvm-side support for post-inlining evaluation of the
__builtin_constant_p GCC intrinsic.
Also fixed SCCPSolver::visitCallSite to not blow up when seeing a call
to a function where canConstantFoldTo returns true, and one of the
arguments is a struct.
Updated from patch initially by Janusz Sobczak.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D4276
llvm-svn: 346322
Allows to disable direct TLS segment access (%fs or %gs). GCC supports
a similar flag, it can be useful in some circumstances, e.g. when a thread
context block needs to be updated directly from user space. More info
and specific use cases: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16145
There is another revision for clang as well.
Related: D53102
All X86 CodeGen tests appear to pass:
```
[46/47] Running lit suite /SourceCache/llvm-trunk-8.0/test/CodeGen
Testing Time: 23.17s
Expected Passes : 3801
Expected Failures : 15
Unsupported Tests : 8021
```
Reviewed by: Craig Topper.
Patch by nruslan (Ruslan Nikolaev).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53103
llvm-svn: 344723
Summary:
These new intrinsics have the semantics of the `minimum` and `maximum`
operations specified by the latest draft of IEEE 754-2018. Unlike
llvm.minnum and llvm.maxnum, these new intrinsics propagate NaNs and
always treat -0.0 as less than 0.0. `minimum` and `maximum` lower
directly to the existing `fminnan` and `fmaxnan` ISel DAG nodes. It is
safe to reuse these DAG nodes because before this patch were only
emitted in situations where there were known to be no NaN arguments or
where NaN propagation was correct and there were known to be no zero
arguments. I know of only four backends that lower fminnan and
fmaxnan: WebAssembly, ARM, AArch64, and SystemZ, and each of these
lowers fminnan and fmaxnan to instructions that are compatible with
the IEEE 754-2018 semantics.
Reviewers: aheejin, dschuff, sunfish, javed.absar
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, dexonsmith, kristina, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52764
llvm-svn: 344437
Summary:
Remove note about summary being ignored. Update to reflect the
fact that summary is now parsed by llvm-as.
While here, fix one summary format that changed since the initial
implementation.
Reviewers: dexonsmith
Subscribers: inglorion, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51540
llvm-svn: 342479
Load Hardening.
Wires up the existing pass to work with a proper IR attribute rather
than just a hidden/internal flag. The internal flag continues to work
for now, but I'll likely remove it soon.
Most of the churn here is adding the IR attribute. I talked about this
Kristof Beyls and he seemed at least initially OK with this direction.
The idea of using a full attribute here is that we *do* expect at least
some forms of this for other architectures. There isn't anything
*inherently* x86-specific about this technique, just that we only have
an implementation for x86 at the moment.
While we could potentially expose this as a Clang-level attribute as
well, that seems like a good question to defer for the moment as it
isn't 100% clear whether that or some other programmer interface (or
both?) would be best. We'll defer the programmer interface side of this
for now, but at least get to the point where the feature can be enabled
without relying on implementation details.
This also allows us to do something that was really hard before: we can
enable *just* the indirect call retpolines when using SLH. For x86, we
don't have any other way to mitigate indirect calls. Other architectures
may take a different approach of course, and none of this is surfaced to
user-level flags.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51157
llvm-svn: 341363
Most users won't have to worry about this as all of the
'getOrInsertFunction' functions on Module will default to the program
address space.
An overload has been added to Function::Create to abstract away the
details for most callers.
This is based on https://reviews.llvm.org/D37054 but without the changes to
make passing a Module to Function::Create() mandatory. I have also added
some more tests and fixed the LLParser to accept call instructions for
types in the program address space.
Reviewed By: bjope
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47541
llvm-svn: 340519
highlighting syntax.
Most of them already were like this, and the Sphinx runs on the docs
build bot seems to be substantially more picky and/or not have support
for a bunch of the syntax here. Hopefully this will let it progress past
this.
My previous attempt to fix the syntax made the `opt` tool happy, but no
idea what the Sphinx stuff is really looking for, and the fact that
other blocks already just use `text` led me to this solution.
llvm-svn: 338983
Craig Topper