This reverts commit 80a34ae311 with fixes.
Previously, since bots turning on EXPENSIVE_CHECKS are essentially turning on
MachineVerifierPass by default on X86 and the fact that
inline-asm-avx-v-constraint-32bit.ll and inline-asm-avx512vl-v-constraint-32bit.ll
are not expected to generate functioning machine code, this would go
down to `report_fatal_error` in MachineVerifierPass. Here passing
`-verify-machineinstrs=0` to make the intent explicit.
This reverts commit 80a34ae311 with fixes.
On bots llvm-clang-x86_64-expensive-checks-ubuntu and
llvm-clang-x86_64-expensive-checks-debian only,
llc returns 0 for these two tests unexpectedly. I tweaked the RUN line a little
bit in the hope that LIT is the culprit since this change is not in the
codepath these tests are testing.
llvm\test\CodeGen\X86\inline-asm-avx-v-constraint-32bit.ll
llvm\test\CodeGen\X86\inline-asm-avx512vl-v-constraint-32bit.ll
This reverts commit rGcd5b308b828e, rGcd5b308b828e, rG8cedf0e2994c.
There are issues to be investigated for polly bots and bots turning on
EXPENSIVE_CHECKS.
Summary:
This patch could be treated as a rebase of D33960. It also fixes PR35547.
A fix for `llvm/test/Other/close-stderr.ll` is proposed in D68164. Seems
the consensus is that the test is passing by chance and I'm not
sure how important it is for us. So it is removed like in D33960 for now.
The rest of the test fixes are just adding `--crash` flag to `not` tool.
** The reason it fixes PR35547 is
`exit` does cleanup including calling class destructor whereas `abort`
does not do any cleanup. In multithreading environment such as ThinLTO or JIT,
threads may share states which mostly are ManagedStatic<>. If faulting thread
tearing down a class when another thread is using it, there are chances of
memory corruption. This is bad 1. It will stop error reporting like pretty
stack printer; 2. The memory corruption is distracting and nondeterministic in
terms of error message, and corruption type (depending one the timing, it
could be double free, heap free after use, etc.).
Reviewers: rnk, chandlerc, zturner, sepavloff, MaskRay, espindola
Reviewed By: rnk, MaskRay
Subscribers: wuzish, jholewinski, qcolombet, dschuff, jyknight, emaste, sdardis, nemanjai, jvesely, nhaehnle, sbc100, arichardson, jgravelle-google, aheejin, kbarton, fedor.sergeev, asb, rbar, johnrusso, simoncook, apazos, sabuasal, niosHD, jrtc27, zzheng, edward-jones, atanasyan, rogfer01, MartinMosbeck, brucehoult, the_o, PkmX, jocewei, jsji, lenary, s.egerton, pzheng, cfe-commits, MaskRay, filcab, davide, MatzeB, mehdi_amini, hiraditya, steven_wu, dexonsmith, rupprecht, seiya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67847
Summary:
This adds initial support for letting targets specify which address
spaces their functions should reside in by default.
If a function is created by a frontend, it will get the default address space specified in the DataLayout, unless the frontend explicitly uses a more general `llvm::Function` constructor. Function address spaces will become a part of the bitcode and textual IR forms, as we do not have access to a data layout whilst parsing LL.
It will be possible to write IR that explicitly has `addrspace(n)` on a function. In this case, the function will reside in the specified space, ignoring the default in the DL.
This is the first step towards placing functions into the correct
address space for Harvard architectures.
Full patchset
* Add program address space to data layout D37052
* Require address space to be specified when creating functions D37054
* [clang] Require address space to be specified when creating functions D37057
Reviewers: pcc, arsenm, kparzysz, hfinkel, theraven
Reviewed By: theraven
Subscribers: arichardson, simoncook, rengolin, wdng, uabelho, bjope, asb, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37052
llvm-svn: 325479
LLVM makes several assumptions about address space 0. However,
alloca is presently constrained to always return this address space.
There's no real way to avoid using alloca, so without this
there is no way to opt out of these assumptions.
The problematic assumptions include:
- That the pointer size used for the stack is the same size as
the code size pointer, which is also the maximum sized pointer.
- That 0 is an invalid, non-dereferencable pointer value.
These are problems for AMDGPU because alloca is used to
implement the private address space, which uses a 32-bit
index as the pointer value. Other pointers are 64-bit
and behave more like LLVM's notion of generic address
space. By changing the address space used for allocas,
we can change our generic pointer type to be LLVM's generic
pointer type which does have similar properties.
llvm-svn: 299888
Yuanfang Chen