In constructAbstractSubprogramScopeDIE there can be a potential mismatch
between `this` and the CU of ContextDIE when a scope is shared between
two DISubprograms belonging to a different CU. In that case, `this` is
the CU that was specified in the IR, but the CU of ContextDIE is that of
the first subprogram that was emitted. This patch fixes the mismatch by
looking up the CU of ContextDIE, and switching to use that.
This fixes PR35212 (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35212)
Patch by Philip Craig!
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39981
llvm-svn: 318289
Summary:
All results are scored, we only process CodeCompletionStrings for the winners.
We now return CompletionList rather than CompletionItem[] (both are valid).
sortText is now based on CodeCompletionResult::orderedName (mostly the same).
This is the first clangd-only completion option, so plumbing changed.
It requires a small clangd patch (exposing CodeCompletionResult::orderedName).
(This can't usefully be enabled yet: we don't support server-side filtering)
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39852
llvm-svn: 318287
LLD already writes a build id if debug info is enabled.
Some projects set --pie-executable to avoid GNU ld bugs about stripping
base relocations from an executable when they actually are used.
Since -fixed:no is the default (and we don't support setting the
-fixed option via the MinGW frontend), we don't need to handle this.
--disable-auto-image-base is ignored just like --enable-auto-image-base
(as we ignore from before).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40031
llvm-svn: 318285
Even if we don't actually write any string table contents, the
4 byte size for the string table will always be written. Make
sure we accommodate for this in the file size. Since this size
is aligned up, this would seldom be an issue in practice.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39891
llvm-svn: 318284
GNU ld doesn't seem to support --icf at all, but this was suggested
in D39885, and GNU gold seems to support it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40019
llvm-svn: 318283
All of these are disabled by default in GNU ld, but enabled by default
in lld.
Disable dynamicbase by default since it potentially could cause
compatibility issues, but just ignore the others since the lld
default should be fine for most concievable cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40017
llvm-svn: 318281
In GNU ld, this option is only available on i386, not on x86_64
(where it's enabled by default with no option to disable it either).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40015
llvm-svn: 318280
Summary:
This fixes PR35241.
When using byval, the data is effectively copied as part of the call
anyway, so the pointer returned by the alloca will not be leaked to the
callee and thus there is no reason to issue a warning.
Reviewers: rnk
Reviewed By: rnk
Subscribers: Ka-Ka, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40009
llvm-svn: 318279
This allows us to remove extra extend creation during lowering and more accurately reflects the semantics of the instruction.
While there add an extra output VT to X86 masked gather node to better match the isel pattern predicate. Currently we're exploiting the fact that the isel table doesn't count how many output results a node actually has if the result type of any can be inferred from the first result and the type constraints defined in tablegen. I think we might ultimately want to lower all MGATHER/MSCATTER to an X86ISD node with the extra mask result and stop relying on this hole in the isel checking.
llvm-svn: 318278
Summary:
This patch optimizes a binop sandwiched between 2 selects with the same condition. Since we know its only used by the select we can propagate the appropriate input value from the earlier select.
As I'm writing this I realize I may need to avoid doing this for division in case the select was protecting a divide by zero?
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: majnemer
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39999
llvm-svn: 318267
break. The alignas(__uint128_t) is not recognized with MSVC
it looks like. Zachary, is there a similar type on windows?
I suppose I can go with alignas(16) here but I'd prefer to
specify the type alignment that I want & let the ABI dictate
how much padding is required.
llvm-svn: 318262
Summary:
This change fixes the XRay trampolines aside from the __xray_CustomEvent
trampoline to align the stack to 16-byte boundaries before calling the
handler. Before this change we've not been explicitly aligning the stack
to 16-byte boundaries, which makes it dangerous when calling handlers
that leave the stack in a state that isn't strictly 16-byte aligned
after calling the handlers.
We add a test that makes sure we can handle these cases appropriately
after the changes, and prevents us from regressing the state moving
forward.
Fixes http://llvm.org/PR35294.
Reviewers: pelikan, pcc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40004
llvm-svn: 318261
When we merge together class definitions, we can end up with the canonical
declaration of a field not being the one that was lexically within the
canonical definition of the class. Additionally, when we merge class
definitions via update records (eg, for a template specialization whose
declaration is instantiated in one module and whose definition is instantiated
in multiple others), we can end up with the list of lexical contents for the
class not including a particular declaration of a field whose lexical parent is
that class definition. In the worst case, we have a field whose canonical
declaration's lexical parent has no fields, and in that case this attempt to
number the fields by walking the fields in the declaration of the class that
contained one of the canonical fields will fail.
Instead, when numbering fields in a class, do the obvious thing: walk the
fields in the definition.
I'm still trying to reduce a testcase; the setup that leads to the above
scenario seems to be quite fragile.
llvm-svn: 318245
It crashes building sqlite; see reply on the llvm-commits thread.
> [SLPVectorizer] Failure to beneficially vectorize 'copyable' elements in integer binary ops.
>
> Patch tries to improve vectorization of the following code:
>
> void add1(int * __restrict dst, const int * __restrict src) {
> *dst++ = *src++;
> *dst++ = *src++ + 1;
> *dst++ = *src++ + 2;
> *dst++ = *src++ + 3;
> }
> Allows to vectorize even if the very first operation is not a binary add, but just a load.
>
> Fixed issues related to previous commit.
>
> Reviewers: spatel, mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, filcab, ABataev
>
> Reviewed By: ABataev, RKSimon
>
> Subscribers: llvm-commits, RKSimon
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28907
llvm-svn: 318239
Summary:
This patch adds another failure mode for `validateCFIProtection(..)`, wherein any register that affects the indirect control flow instruction is clobbered to between the CFI-check and the instruction's execution.
Also includes a modification to make MCInstrDesc::hasDefOfPhysReg public.
Reviewers: vlad.tsyrklevich
Reviewed By: vlad.tsyrklevich
Subscribers: llvm-commits, pcc, kcc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39820
llvm-svn: 318238
Simplifying a loop latch changes the IR and we need to make sure the pass manager knows to invalidate analysis passes if that happened.
PR35210 discovered a case where we failed to invalidate the post dominator tree after this simplification because we no changes other than simplifying the loop latch.
Fixes PR35210.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40035
llvm-svn: 318237
Summary:
In the mode when ASan shadow base is computed as the address of an
external global (__asan_shadow, currently on android/arm32 only),
regalloc prefers to rematerialize this value to save register spills.
Even in -Os. On arm32 it is rather expensive (2 loads + 1 constant
pool entry).
This changes adds an inline asm in the function prologue to suppress
this behavior. It reduces AsanTest binary size by 7%.
Reviewers: pcc, vitalybuka
Subscribers: aemerson, kristof.beyls, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40048
llvm-svn: 318235
LLVM exposes a file in the backend (X86TargetParser.def) that
contains information about the correct list of CpuIs values.
This patch removes 2 of the copied and pasted versions of this
list from clang and instead includes the data from the .def file.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40054
llvm-svn: 318234
Lifting from Bob Wilson's notes: The hash value that we compute and
store in PGO profile data to detect out-of-date profiles does not
include enough information. This means that many significant changes to
the source will not cause compiler warnings about the profile being out
of date, and worse, we may continue to use the outdated profile data to
make bad optimization decisions. There is some tension here because
some source changes won't affect PGO and we don't want to invalidate the
profile unnecessarily.
This patch adds a new hashing scheme which is more sensitive to loop
nesting, conditions, and out-of-order control flow. Here are examples
which show snippets which get the same hash under the current scheme,
and different hashes under the new scheme:
Loop Nesting Example
--------------------
// Snippet 1
while (foo()) {
while (bar()) {}
}
// Snippet 2
while (foo()) {}
while (bar()) {}
Condition Example
-----------------
// Snippet 1
if (foo())
bar();
baz();
// Snippet 2
if (foo())
bar();
else
baz();
Out-of-order Control Flow Example
---------------------------------
// Snippet 1
while (foo()) {
if (bar()) {}
baz();
}
// Snippet 2
while (foo()) {
if (bar())
continue;
baz();
}
In each of these cases, it's useful to differentiate between the
snippets because swapping their profiles gives bad optimization hints.
The new hashing scheme considers some logical operators in an effort to
detect more changes in conditions. This isn't a perfect scheme. E.g, it
does not produce the same hash for these equivalent snippets:
// Snippet 1
bool c = !a || b;
if (d && e) {}
// Snippet 2
bool f = d && e;
bool c = !a || b;
if (f) {}
This would require an expensive data flow analysis. Short of that, the
new hashing scheme looks reasonably complete, based on a scan over the
statements we place counters on.
Profiles which use the old version of the PGO hash remain valid and can
be used without issue (there are tests in tree which check this).
rdar://17068282
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39446
llvm-svn: 318229
This is no longer needed for any of the runtimes build and it breaks
in case we don't have the working compiler yet, e.g. when building
a compiler that uses compiler-rt and libc++ as a default runtime,
because these common options check whether these are available.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39932
llvm-svn: 318227
Jonas Devlieghere