Currently, opaque pointers are supported in two forms: The
-force-opaque-pointers mode, where all pointers are opaque and
typed pointers do not exist. And as a simple ptr type that can
coexist with typed pointers.
This patch removes support for the mixed mode. You either get
typed pointers, or you get opaque pointers, but not both. In the
(current) default mode, using ptr is forbidden. In -opaque-pointers
mode, all pointers are opaque.
The motivation here is that the mixed mode introduces additional
issues that don't exist in fully opaque mode. D105155 is an example
of a design problem. Looking at D109259, it would probably need
additional work to support mixed mode (e.g. to generate GEPs for
typed base but opaque result). Mixed mode will also end up
inserting many casts between i8* and ptr, which would require
significant additional work to consistently avoid.
I don't think the mixed mode is particularly valuable, as it
doesn't align with our end goal. The only thing I've found it to
be moderately useful for is adding some opaque pointer tests in
between typed pointer tests, but I think we can live without that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109290
Only enforce that ptr* is illegal if the base type is a simple type,
not when it is something like %ty, where %ty may resolve to an
opaque pointer in force-opaque-pointers mode.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108876
Generate btf_tag annotations for function parameters.
A field "annotations" is introduced to DILocalVariable, and
annotations are represented as an DINodeArray, similar to
DIComposite elements. The following example illustrates how
annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DILocalVariable(name: "info",, arg: 1, ..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106620
Generate btf_tag annotations for DIGlobalVariable.
A field "annotations" is introduced to DIGlobalVariable, and
annotations are represented as an DINodeArray, similar to
DIComposite elements. The following example illustrates how
annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DIGlobalVariable(..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106619
Generate btf_tag annotations for DISubprogram types.
A field "annotations" is introduced to DISubprogram, and
annotations are represented as an DINodeArray, similar to
DIComposite elements. The following example illustrates how
annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DISubprogram(..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106618
Generate btf_tag annotations for DIDrived types. More specifically,
clang frontend generates the btf_tag annotations for record
fields. The annotations are represented as an DINodeArray
in DebugInfo. The following example illustrate how
annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DIDerivedType(tag: DW_TAG_member, ..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106616
Clang patch D106614 added attribute btf_tag support. This patch
generates btf_tag annotations for DIComposite types.
A field "annotations" is introduced to DIComposite, and the
annotations are represented as an DINodeArray, similar to
DIComposite elements. The following example illustrates
how annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DICompositeType(..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Each btf_tag annotation is represented as a 2D array of
meta strings. Each record may have more than one
btf_tag annotations, as in the above example.
Reland with additional fixes for llvm/unittests/IR/DebugTypeODRUniquingTest.cpp.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106615
Clang patch D106614 added attribute btf_tag support. This patch
generates btf_tag annotations for DIComposite types.
A field "annotations" is introduced to DIComposite, and the
annotations are represented as an DINodeArray, similar to
DIComposite elements. The following example illustrates
how annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DICompositeType(..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Each btf_tag annotation is represented as a 2D array of
meta strings. Each record may have more than one
btf_tag annotations, as in the above example.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106615
AttributeList::hasAttribute() is confusing, use clearer methods like
hasParamAttr()/hasRetAttr().
Add hasRetAttr() since it was missing from AttributeList.
In the textual format, `noduplicates` means no COMDAT/section group
deduplication is performed. Therefore, if both sets of sections are retained, and
they happen to define strong external symbols with the same names,
there will be a duplicate definition linker error.
In PE/COFF, the selection kind lowers to `IMAGE_COMDAT_SELECT_NODUPLICATES`.
The name describes the corollary instead of the immediate semantics. The name
can cause confusion to other binary formats (ELF, wasm) which have implemented/
want to implement the "no deduplication" selection kind. Rename it to be clearer.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106319
Continuing on from D105780, this should be the last major bit of
attribute cleanup. Currently, LLParser implements attribute parsing
for functions, parameters and returns separately, enumerating all
supported (and unsupported) attributes each time. This patch
extracts the common parsing logic, and performs a check afterwards
whether the attribute is valid in the given position. Parameters
and returns are handled together, while function attributes need
slightly different logic to support attribute groups.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105938
While working on the elementtype attribute, I felt that the type
attribute handling in AttrBuilder is overly repetitive. This patch
converts the separate Type* members into an std::array<Type*>, so
that all type attribute kinds can be handled generically.
There's more room for improvement here (especially when it comes to
converting the AttrBuilder to an Attribute), but this seems like a
good starting point.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105658
This reverts commit 8cd35ad854.
It breaks `TestMembersAndLocalsWithSameName.py` on GreenDragon and
Mikael Holmén points out in D104827 that bitcode files created with the
patch cannot be parsed with binaries built before it.
While this should not matter for most architectures (where the program
address space is 0), it is important for CHERI (and therefore Arm Morello).
We use address space 200 for all of our code pointers and without this
change we assert in the SelectionDAG handling of BlockAddress nodes.
It is also useful for AVR: previously programs targeting
AVR that attempt to read their own machine code
via a pointer to a label would instead read from RAM
using a pointer relative to the the start of program flash.
Reviewed By: dylanmckay, theraven
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48803
4506f614cb fixed parsing of textual IR to
reject `ptr*`, but broke the auto-conversion of `i32**` to `ptr` with
`--force-opaque-pointers`.
Get that working again by refactoring LLParser::parseType to only send
`ptr`-spelled pointers into the type suffix logic when it's the return
of a function type. This also rejects `ptr addrspace(3) addrspace(2)`,
which 1e6303e60c invadvertently started
accepting. Just the default top-level error message for the
double-addrspace since I had trouble thinking of something nice;
probably it's fine as is (it doesn't look valid the way that `ptr*`
does).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105146
Currently, LLParser will create a Function/GlobalVariable forward
reference based on the desired pointer type and then modify it when
it is declared. With opaque pointers, we generally do not know the
correct type to use until we see the declaration.
Solve this by creating the forward reference with a dummy type, and
then performing a RAUW with the correct Function/GlobalVariable when
it is declared. The approach is adopted from
b5b55963f6.
This results in a change to the use list order, which is why we see
test changes on some module passes that are not stable under use list
reordering.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104950
Add UNIQUED and DISTINCT properties in Metadata.def and use them to
implement restrictions on the `distinct` property of MDNodes:
* DIExpression can currently be parsed from IR or read from bitcode
as `distinct`, but this property is silently dropped when printing
to IR. This causes accepted IR to fail to round-trip. As DIExpression
appears inline at each use in the canonical form of IR, it cannot
actually be `distinct` anyway, as there is no syntax to describe it.
* Similarly, DIArgList is conceptually always uniqued. It is currently
restricted to only appearing in contexts where there is no syntax for
`distinct`, but for consistency it is treated equivalently to
DIExpression in this patch.
* DICompileUnit is already restricted to always being `distinct`, but
along with adding general support for the inverse restriction I went
ahead and described this in Metadata.def and updated the parser to be
general. Future nodes which have this restriction can share this
support.
The new UNIQUED property applies to DIExpression and DIArgList, and
forbids them to be `distinct`. It also implies they are canonically
printed inline at each use, rather than via MDNode ID.
The new DISTINCT property applies to DICompileUnit, and requires it to
be `distinct`.
A potential alternative change is to forbid the non-inline syntax for
DIExpression entirely, as is done with DIArgList implicitly by requiring
it appear in the context of a function. For example, we would forbid:
!named = !{!0}
!0 = !DIExpression()
Instead we would only accept the equivalent inlined version:
!named = !{!DIExpression()}
This essentially removes the ability to create a `distinct` DIExpression
by construction, as there is no syntax for `distinct` inline. If this
patch is accepted as-is, the result would be that the non-canonical
version is accepted, but the following would be an error and produce a diagnostic:
!named = !{!0}
; error: 'distinct' not allowed for !DIExpression()
!0 = distinct !DIExpression()
Also update some documentation to consistently use the inline syntax for
DIExpression, and to describe the restrictions on `distinct` for nodes
where applicable.
Reviewed By: StephenTozer, t-tye
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104827
Bring back the testcase dropped in
1e6303e60c and get it passing by checking
explicitly for `ptr*` in LLParser. Uses `Type::isOpaquePointerTy()` from
ad4bb82809.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104938
Add support for call of opaque pointer, currently only possible for
indirect calls.
This requires a bit of special casing in LLParser, as calls do not
specify the callee operand type explicitly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104740
Spin-off from D104740: I don't think this special handling is needed
anymore. Calls in textual IR are annotated with addrspace(N) (which
defaults to the program address space from data layout) and specifies
the expected pointer address space of the callee. There is no need
to special-case the program address space on top of that, as it
already is the default expected address space, and we shouldn't
allow use of the program address space if the call was explicitly
annotated with some other address space.
The IsCall parameter is retained because it will be used again soon.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104752
Adjust assertions to use isOpaqueOrPointeeTypeMatches() and make
it return an opaque pointer result for an opaque base pointer. We
also need to enumerate the element type, as it is no longer
implicitly enumerated through the pointer type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104655
The comment mentions deplibs should be removed in 4.0. Removing it in this patch.
Reviewed By: compnerd, dexonsmith, lattner
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102763
FullTy is only necessary when we need to figure out what type an
instruction works with given a pointer's pointee type. However, we just
end up using the value operand's type, so FullTy isn't necessary.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102788
We really ought to support no_sanitize("coverage") in line with other
sanitizers. This came up again in discussions on the Linux-kernel
mailing lists, because we currently do workarounds using objtool to
remove coverage instrumentation. Since that support is only on x86, to
continue support coverage instrumentation on other architectures, we
must support selectively disabling coverage instrumentation via function
attributes.
Unfortunately, for SanitizeCoverage, it has not been implemented as a
sanitizer via fsanitize= and associated options in Sanitizers.def, but
rolls its own option fsanitize-coverage. This meant that we never got
"automatic" no_sanitize attribute support.
Implement no_sanitize attribute support by special-casing the string
"coverage" in the NoSanitizeAttr implementation. To keep the feature as
unintrusive to existing IR generation as possible, define a new negative
function attribute NoSanitizeCoverage to propagate the information
through to the instrumentation pass.
Fixes: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49035
Reviewed By: vitalybuka, morehouse
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102772
These checks already exist as asserts when creating the corresponding
instruction. Anybody creating these instructions already need to take
care to not break these checks.
Move the checks for success/failure ordering in cmpxchg from the
verifier to the LLParser and BitcodeReader plus an assert.
Add some tests for cmpxchg ordering. The .bc files are created from the
.ll files with an llvm-as with these checks disabled.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102803
FullTy is only necessary when we need to figure out what type an
instruction works with given a pointer's pointee type. However, we just
end up using the value operand's type, so FullTy isn't necessary.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102788
No verifier changes needed, the verifier currently doesn't check that
the pointer operand's pointee type matches the GEP type. There is a
similar check in GetElementPtrInst::Create() though.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102744
Don't check that types match when the pointer operand is an opaque
pointer.
I would separate the Assembler and Verifier changes, but
verify-uselistorder in the Assembler test ends up running the verifier.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102450
Swift's new concurrency features are going to require guaranteed tail calls so
that they don't consume excessive amounts of stack space. This would normally
mean "tailcc", but there are also Swift-specific ABI desires that don't
naturally go along with "tailcc" so this adds another calling convention that's
the combination of "swiftcc" and "tailcc".
Support is added for AArch64 and X86 for now.
This extends any frame record created in the function to include that
parameter, passed in X22.
The new record looks like [X22, FP, LR] in memory, and FP is stored with 0b0001
in bits 63:60 (CodeGen assumes they are 0b0000 in normal operation). The effect
of this is that tools walking the stack should expect to see one of three
values there:
* 0b0000 => a normal, non-extended record with just [FP, LR]
* 0b0001 => the extended record [X22, FP, LR]
* 0b1111 => kernel space, and a non-extended record.
All other values are currently reserved.
If compiling for arm64e this context pointer is address-discriminated with the
discriminator 0xc31a and the DB (process-specific) key.
There is also an "i8** @llvm.swift.async.context.addr()" intrinsic providing
front-ends access to this slot (and forcing its creation initialized to nullptr
if necessary).
The opaque pointer type is essentially just a normal pointer type with a
null pointee type.
This also adds support for the opaque pointer type to the bitcode
reader/writer, as well as to textual IR.
To avoid confusion with existing pointer types, we disallow creating a
pointer to an opaque pointer.
Opaque pointer types should not be widely used at this point since many
parts of LLVM still do not support them. The next steps are to add some
very simple use cases of opaque pointers to make sure they work, then
start pretending that all pointers are opaque pointers and see what
breaks.
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150359.html
Reviewed By: dblaikie, dexonsmith, pcc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101704
I've taken the following steps to add unwinding support from inline assembly:
1) Add a new `unwind` "attribute" (like `sideeffect`) to the asm syntax:
```
invoke void asm sideeffect unwind "call thrower", "~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"()
to label %exit unwind label %uexit
```
2.) Add Bitcode writing/reading support + LLVM-IR parsing.
3.) Emit EHLabels around inline assembly lowering (SelectionDAGBuilder + GlobalISel) when `InlineAsm::canThrow` is enabled.
4.) Tweak InstCombineCalls/InlineFunction pass to not mark inline assembly "calls" as nounwind.
5.) Add clang support by introducing a new clobber: "unwind", which lower to the `canThrow` being enabled.
6.) Don't allow unwinding callbr.
Reviewed By: Amanieu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95745
Follow up on 431e3138a and complete the other possible combinations.
Besides enforcing the new behavior, it also mitigates TSAN false positives when
combining orders that used to be stronger.
When we pass a AArch64 Homogeneous Floating-Point
Aggregate (HFA) argument with increased alignment
requirements, for example
struct S {
__attribute__ ((__aligned__(16))) double v[4];
};
Clang uses `[4 x double]` for the parameter, which is passed
on the stack at alignment 8, whereas it should be at
alignment 16, following Rule C.4 in
AAPCS (https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/master/aapcs64/aapcs64.rst#642parameter-passing-rules)
Currently we don't have a way to express in LLVM IR the
alignment requirements of the function arguments. The align
attribute is applicable to pointers only, and only for some
special ways of passing arguments (e..g byval). When
implementing AAPCS32/AAPCS64, clang resorts to dubious hacks
of coercing to types, which naturally have the needed
alignment. We don't have enough types to cover all the
cases, though.
This patch introduces a new use of the stackalign attribute
to control stack slot alignment, when and if an argument is
passed in memory.
The attribute align is left as an optimizer hint - it still
applies to pointer types only and pertains to the content of
the pointer, whereas the alignment of the pointer itself is
determined by the stackalign attribute.
For byval arguments, the stackalign attribute assumes the
role, previously perfomed by align, falling back to align if
stackalign` is absent.
On the clang side, when passing arguments using the "direct"
style (cf. `ABIArgInfo::Kind`), now we can optionally
specify an alignment, which is emitted as the new
`stackalign` attribute.
Patch by Momchil Velikov and Lucas Prates.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98794
This is needed for Fortran assumed shape arrays whose dimensions are
defined as,
- 'count' is taken from array descriptor passed as parameter by
caller, access from descriptor is defined by type DIExpression.
- 'lowerBound' is defined by callee.
The current alternate way represents using upperBound in place of
count, where upperBound is calculated in callee in a temp variable
using lowerBound and count
Representation with count (DIExpression) is not only clearer as
compared to upperBound (DIVariable) but it has another advantage that
variable count is accessed by being parameter has better chance of
survival at higher optimization level than upperBound being local
variable.
Reviewed By: aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99335
Nikita Popov