Do not spuriously reject constexpr functions that access elements of an array
of unknown bound; this may later become valid once the bound is known. Permit
array-to-pointer decay on such arrays, but disallow pointer arithmetic (since
we do not know whether it will have defined behavior).
The standard is not clear on how this should work, but this seems to be a
decent answer.
Patch by Robert Haberlach!
llvm-svn: 301822
This was an omission in r301813. I had made the supporting changes to
make this happen, but I forgot to actually update the PrevPair
declaration.
llvm-svn: 301817
We may not be able to rewrite indirect branch target, but we also want to take it into
account when folding, i.e. if it and all its successor's predecessors go to the same
destination, we can fold, i.e. no need to thread.
llvm-svn: 301816
In cases where an instruction (a call site, say) is RAUW'ed with some
other value (this is possible via the `returned` attribute, for
instance), we want the slot in UnknownInsts to point to the original
Instruction we wanted to track, not the value it got replaced by.
Fixes PR32587.
This relands r301426.
llvm-svn: 301814
In preparation for introducing writing capabilities for each of
these classes, I would like to adopt a Foo / FooRef naming
convention, where Foo indicates that the class can manipulate and
serialize Foos, and FooRef indicates that it is an immutable view of
an existing Foo. In other words, Foo is a writer and FooRef is a
reader. This patch names some existing readers to conform to the
FooRef convention, while offering no functional change.
llvm-svn: 301810
Summary:
This frees up one slot in the HandleBaseKind enum, which I will use
later to add a new kind of value handle. The size of the
HandleBaseKind enum is important because we store a HandleBaseKind in
the low two bits of a (in the worst case) 4 byte aligned pointer.
Reviewers: davide, chandlerc
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32634
llvm-svn: 301809
This is the SelectionDAG version of D32521. If know where at least one 1 is located in the input to these intrinsics we can place an upper bound on the number of bits needed to represent the count and thus increase the number of known zeros in the output.
I think we can also refine this further for CTTZ_UNDEF/CTLZ_UNDEF by assuming that the answer will never be BitWidth. I've left this out for now because it caused other test failures across multiple targets. Usually because of turning ADD into OR based on this new information.
I'll fix CTPOP in a future patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32692
llvm-svn: 301806
Summary: [JumpThread] Do RAUW in case Cond folds to a constant in the CFG
Reviewers: sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32407
llvm-svn: 301804
These test cases occassionally fail when run on powerpc64le:
ignore_lib1.cc
ignore_lib5.cc
TestCases/Posix/current_allocated_bytes.cc
rtl/TsanRtlTest/Posix.ThreadLocalAccesses
TestCases/Posix/coverage-fork-direct.cc
The failures cause false problem reports to be sent to developers whose
code had nothing to do with the failures. Reactivate them when the real
problems are fixed.
This could also be related to the same problems as with the tests
ThreadedOneSizeMallocStressTest, ThreadedMallocStressTest, ManyThreadsTest,
and several others that do not run reliably on powerpc.
llvm-svn: 301798
In this patch, I introduce a new alt macro feature.
This feature adds meaning for the % when using it as a prefix to the calling macro arguments.
In the altmacro mode, the percent sign '%' before an absolute expression convert the expression first to a string.
As described in the https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.27/as/Altmacro.html
"Expression results as strings
You can write `%expr' to evaluate the expression expr and use the result as a string."
expression assumptions:
1. '%' can only evaluate an absolute expression.
2. Altmacro '%' must be the first character of the evaluated expression.
3. If no '%' is located before the expression, a regular module operation is expected.
4. The result of Absolute Expressions can be only integer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32526
llvm-svn: 301797
For a linker init mutex with lazy flag setup
(no __tsan_mutex_create call), it is possible that
no lock/unlock happened before the destroy call.
Then when destroy runs we still don't know that
it is a linker init mutex and will emulate a memory write.
This in turn can lead to false positives as the mutex
is in fact linker initialized.
Support linker init flag in destroy annotation to resolve this.
llvm-svn: 301795
Summary:
Unless I'm missing something, the DeferredGlobal struct's GV field is
unused, removing which makes the struct itself trivial.
Reviewers: rafael, chandlerc
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32691
llvm-svn: 301789
Summary:
In this patch we document the requirements for implementations that want
to install handlers for the dynamically-controlled XRay "framework".
This clarifies what the expectations are for implementations that
want to install their handlers using this API (similar to how the FDR
logging implementation does so). It also gives users some guarantees on
semantics for the APIs.
If all goes well, users can decide to use the XRay APIs to control the
tracing/logging at the application level, without having to depend on
implementation details of the installed logging implementation. This
lets users choose the implementation that comes with compiler-rt, or
potentially multiple other implementations that use the same APIs.
We also add one convenience function (__xray_remove_log_impl()) for
explicitly removing the currently installed log implementation.
Reviewers: kpw, pelikan
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32579
llvm-svn: 301784
We discussed shrinking/widening of selects in IR in D26556, and I'll try to get back to that
patch eventually. But I'm hoping that this transform is less iffy in the DAG where we can check
legality of the select that we want to produce.
A few things to note:
1. We can't wait until after legalization and do this generically because (at least in the x86
tests from PR14657), we'll have PACKSS and bitcasts in the pattern.
2. This might benefit more of the SSE codegen if we lifted the legal-or-custom requirement, but
that requires a closer look to make sure we don't end up worse.
3. There's a 'vblendv' opportunity that we're missing that results in andn/and/or in some cases.
That should be fixed next.
4. I'm assuming that AVX1 offers the worst of all worlds wrt uneven ISA support with multiple
legal vector sizes, but if there are other targets like that, we should add more tests.
5. There's a codegen miracle in the multi-BB tests from PR14657 (the gcc auto-vectorization tests):
despite IR that is terrible for the target, this patch allows us to generate the optimal loop
code because something post-ISEL is hoisting the splat extends above the vector loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32620
llvm-svn: 301781
Krzysztof Parzyszek