/usr/bin/env is recommended as a cross-platform way to find python. But:
- we're only using lldb on darwin, where we know python (or at least,
the xcrun-style shortcut) is in /usr/bin/
- the python interpreter in LLDB comes from /S/L/F:
$ otool -L Contents/SharedFrameworks/LLDB.framework/LLDB | grep Python
/System/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/Python
so when we use the lldb python module, it calls into the swig/python
support in the lldb framework, and if there's a mismatch between the
interpreter and the linked python, weird things occur.
In theory, I believe this should be done by:
- looking for the LLDB framework (llgdb.py does some of that)
- finding the binary inside the framework
- looking for the Python it was linked against (otool -L)
- finding the interpreter executable inside the Python.framework
But in practice, that's only different if we use a custom LLDB
framework/pythonpath when running these tests, and AFAIK nobody does
that right now, so the code would be dead anyway.
Don't pretend we can use any arbitrary python: just use the system one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47967
llvm-svn: 334369
Summary: We've had these target independent intrinsics for at least a year and a half. Looks like they do exactly what we need here and the backend already supports them.
Reviewers: RKSimon, delena, spatel, GBuella
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47693
llvm-svn: 334366
Summary:
Running sanitized 32-bit x86 programs on glibc 2.27 crashes at startup, with:
ERROR: AddressSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address 0xf7a8a250 (pc 0xf7f807f4 bp 0xff969fc8 sp 0xff969f7c T16777215)
The signal is caused by a WRITE memory access.
#0 0xf7f807f3 in _dl_get_tls_static_info (/lib/ld-linux.so.2+0x127f3)
#1 0xf7a92599 (/lib/libasan.so.5+0x112599)
#2 0xf7a80737 (/lib/libasan.so.5+0x100737)
#3 0xf7f7e14f in _dl_init (/lib/ld-linux.so.2+0x1014f)
#4 0xf7f6eb49 (/lib/ld-linux.so.2+0xb49)
The problem is that glibc changed the calling convention for the GLIBC_PRIVATE
symbol that sanitizer uses (even when it should not, GLIBC_PRIVATE is exactly
for symbols that can change at any time, be removed etc.), see
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-08/msg00497.html
Fixes https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/954
Patch By: Jakub Jelinek
Reviewed By: vitalybuka, Lekensteyn
Differential Revison: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44623
llvm-svn: 334363
We currently support them only in AArch64. The NEON Reference,
however, says they are 'ARMv7, ARMv8' intrinsics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47446
llvm-svn: 334362
We currently support them only in AArch64. The NEON Reference,
however, says they are 'ARMv7, ARMv8' intrinsics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47447
llvm-svn: 334361
This reverts commit 65243b6d19143cb7a03f68df0169dcb63e8b4632.
Seems like it's not a flake. It might have something to do with
the '*' character being in a command line.
llvm-svn: 334356
There were a few linux compilation failures, but other than that
I think this was just a flake that caused the tests to fail. I'm
going to resubmit and see if the failures go away, if not I'll
revert again.
llvm-svn: 334355
This reverts commit 10d2e88e87150a35dc367ba30716189d2af26774.
This is causing some test failures for some reason, reverting
while I investigate.
llvm-svn: 334354
This function was internal to Program.inc, but I've needed this
on several occasions when I've had to use CreateProcess without
llvm's sys::Execute functions. In doing so, I noticed that the
function was written using unsafe C-string access and was pretty
hard to understand / make sense of, so I've also re-written the
functions to use more modern LLVM constructs.
llvm-svn: 334353
Symbols are cleaned up from the program state map when they go out of scope.
Memory regions are cleaned up when the corresponding object is destroyed, and
additionally in 'checkDeadSymbols' in case destructor modeling was incomplete.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47416
llvm-svn: 334352
This check will mark raw pointers to C++ standard library container internal
buffers 'released' when the objects themselves are destroyed. Such information
can be used by MallocChecker to warn about use-after-free problems.
In this first version, 'std::basic_string's are supported.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47135
llvm-svn: 334348
This is a recommit of r333506, which was reverted in r333518.
The original commit message is below.
In r325551 many calls of malloc/calloc/realloc were replaces with calls of
their safe counterparts defined in the namespace llvm. There functions
generate crash if memory cannot be allocated, such behavior facilitates
handling of out of memory errors on Windows.
If the result of *alloc function were checked for success, the function was
not replaced with the safe variant. In these cases the calling function made
the error handling, like:
T *NewElts = static_cast<T*>(malloc(NewCapacity*sizeof(T)));
if (NewElts == nullptr)
report_bad_alloc_error("Allocation of SmallVector element failed.");
Actually knowledge about the function where OOM occurred is useless. Moreover
having a single entry point for OOM handling is convenient for investigation
of memory problems. This change removes custom OOM errors handling and
replaces them with calls to functions `llvm::safe_*alloc`.
Declarations of `safe_*alloc` are moved to a separate include file, to avoid
cyclic dependency in SmallVector.h
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47440
llvm-svn: 334344
SmallSet forwards to SmallPtrSet for pointer types. SmallPtrSet supports iteration, but a normal SmallSet doesn't. So if it wasn't for the forwarding, this wouldn't work.
These places were found by hiding the begin/end methods in the SmallSet forwarding
llvm-svn: 334343
SmallSet forwards to SmallPtrSet for pointer types. SmallPtrSet supports iteration, but a normal SmallSet doesn't. So if it wasn't for the forwarding, this wouldn't work.
These places were found by hiding the begin/end methods in the SmallSet forwarding.
llvm-svn: 334339
Summary:
Following up on and complementing D44404.
Currently many allocator specific errors (OOM, for example) are reported as
a text message and CHECK(0) termination, not stack, no details, not too
helpful nor informative. To improve the situation, detailed and
structured errors were defined and reported under the appropriate conditions.
Reviewers: eugenis
Subscribers: srhines, delcypher, #sanitizers, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47793
llvm-svn: 334338
There are many masked intrinsics that just wrap a select around a legacy intrinsic from a pre-avx512 instruciton set. If that intrinsic is implemented as a macro, nothing prevents it from being used when only the older feature was enabled. This likely generates very poor code since we don't have a good way to convert from the scalar masked type used by the intrinsic into a vector control for a legacy blend instruction. If we even have a blend instruction to use.
By adding a feature to the select builtins we can prevent and diagnose misuse of these intrinsics.
llvm-svn: 334334
I'd like to make the select builtins require an avx512f, avx512bw, or avx512vl fature to match what is normally required to get masking. Truncate is special in that there are instructions with a 128/256-bit masked result even without avx512vl.
By using special buitlins we can emit a select without using the 128/256-bit select builtins.
llvm-svn: 334331
I'm looking into making the select builtins require avx512f, avx512bw, or avx512vl since masking operations generally require those features.
The extract builtins are funny because the 512-bit versions return a 128 or 256 bit vector with masking even when avx512vl is not supported.
llvm-svn: 334330
I think we assume poison, not undef, for certain transforms we
currently do. In any case, we should clarify the language here.
(This sort of conversion is undefined behavior according to the C
and C++ standards. And in practice, hardware implementations handle
overflow inconsistently, so it would be difficult to define the
result here.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47851
llvm-svn: 334326
We need to clarify the language here. I think poison makes more sense
than undef, since it's an undefined operation rather than uninitialized
memory. I don't think anything depends on the difference at the moment,
though.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47859
llvm-svn: 334325
Florian Hahn