Format specifiers of incorrect length are replaced with format specifier
macros from `<cinttypes>` matching the typedefs used to declare the type
of the value being printed.
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89637
... because using unsigned constants for comparing against signed values
is liable to mutate the signed value via conversion to an unsigned type
due to the usual arithmetic conversions.
There were invalid DIE references which nobody used. If LLDB starts to
report invalid DIE references it would lock up (mutex lock).
These invalid DIE references are there since initial check-in by:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83302
isNoopIntrinsic returns true for some intrinsics that are modeled in
MemorySSA but do not actually read or write any memory and do not block
DSE. Such intrinsics should not be considered as read-clobbers.
This pattern was repeated a few times, and for some reason always
using insert or try_emplace, even though we know in advance that
we're looking for an existing entry and not trying to create a
new one.
This implements the likelihood attribute for the switch statement. Based on the
discussion in D85091 and D86559 it only handles the attribute when placed on
the case labels or the default labels.
It also marks the likelihood attribute as feature complete. There are more QoI
patches in the pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89210
loadiwkey and aesenc128kl share the same opcode but one is memory
and one is register. But they're behavior is quite different. We
were crashing because one has an output register and one doesn't
and the backend couldn't account for that. But since they aren't
foldable we can just add NotMemoryFoldable so they won't be looked at.
It's not pretty, but probably better than modelling it
as an opaque SCEVUnknown, i guess.
It is relevant e.g. for the loop that was brought up in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786#c26
as an example of what we'd be able to better analyze
once SCEV handles `ptrtoint` (D89456).
But as it is evident, even if we deal with `ptrtoint` there,
we also fail to model such an `ashr`.
Also, modeling of mul-of-exact-shr/div could use improvement.
As per alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/tnfZKd
```
define i8 @src(i8 %0) {
%2 = ashr exact i8 %0, 4
ret i8 %2
}
declare i8 @llvm.abs(i8, i1)
declare i8 @llvm.smin(i8, i8)
declare i8 @llvm.smax(i8, i8)
define i8 @tgt(i8 %x) {
%abs_x = call i8 @llvm.abs(i8 %x, i1 false)
%div = udiv exact i8 %abs_x, 16
%t0 = call i8 @llvm.smax(i8 %x, i8 -1)
%t1 = call i8 @llvm.smin(i8 %t0, i8 1)
%r = mul nsw i8 %div, %t1
ret i8 %r
}
```
Transformation seems to be correct!
This adds some basic costs for MVE reductions - currently just costing
the simple legal add vectors as a single MVE instruction. More complex
costing can be added in the future when the framework more readily
allows it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88980
This adds a very basic cost for active_lane_mask under MVE - making the
assumption that they will be free and then apologizing for that in a
comment.
In reality they may either be free (by being nicely folded into a tail
predicated loop), cost the same as a VCTP or be expanded into vdup's,
adds and cmp's. It is difficult to detect the difference from a single
getIntrinsicInstrCost call, so makes the assumption that the vectorizer
is adding them, and only added them where it makes sense.
We may need to change this in the future to better model predicate costs
in the vectorizer, especially at -Os or non-tail predicated loops. The
vectorizer currently does not query the cost of these instructions but
that will change in the future and a zero cost there probably makes the
most sense at the moment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88989
In lldb, explicitly set the "option() honors normal variables" CMake policy. This applies for
standalone lldb builds and matches what llvm, clang, etc do. This prevents potentially unwanted
clearing of variables like `LLVM_ENABLE_WARNINGS`, and also prevents unnecessary build warnings.
See: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/policy/CMP0077.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89614
This patch adds metadata !noundef and makes load instructions can optionally have it.
A load with !noundef always return a well-defined value (has no undef bit or isn't poison).
If the loaded value isn't well defined, the behavior is undefined.
This metadata can be used to encode the assumption from C/C++ that certain reads of variables should have well-defined values.
It is helpful for optimizing freeze instructions away, because freeze can be removed when its operand has well-defined value, and showing that a load from arbitrary location is well-defined is usually hard otherwise.
The same information can be encoded with llvm.assume with operand bundle; using metadata is chosen because I wasn't sure whether code motion can be freely done when llvm.assume is inserted from clang instead.
The existing codebase already is stripping unknown metadata when doing code motion, so using metadata is UB-safe as well.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89050
The test reorders the basic blocks to be dis-contiguous in the address space and checks if the back trace contains the right symbol.
Reviewed By: labath
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89179
LLVM rejects DWARF operator DW_OP_over. This DWARF operator is needed
for Flang to support assumed rank array.
Summary:
Currently LLVM rejects DWARF operator DW_OP_over. Below error is
produced when llvm finds this operator.
[..]
invalid expression
!DIExpression(151, 20, 16, 48, 30, 35, 80, 34, 6)
warning: ignoring invalid debug info in over.ll
[..]
There were some parts missing in support of this operator, which are
now completed.
Testing
-added a unit testcase
-check-debuginfo
-check-llvm
Reviewed By: aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89208
As requested in D89346. This allows us to add some early outs.
I reordered some checks a little bit to make the more common bail outs happen earlier. Like checking opcode before checking hasOneUse. And I moved the bit width check to make sure it was safe to look through a truncate to the spot where we look through truncates instead of after.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89494
Hubert Tong