Summary: When using the split sp adjustment and using the frame-pointer
we were still emitting CFI CFA directives based on the sp value. The
final sp-based offset also didn't reflect the two-stage sp adjust. There
remain CFI issues that aren't related to the split sp adjustment, and
thus will be addressed in a separate patch.
Reviewers: asb, lenary, shiva0217
Reviewed By: lenary, shiva0217
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69385
Summary: Adds tests necessary to properly show the impact of other
patches that affect the emission of CFI directives.
Reviewers: asb, lenary
Reviewed By: lenary
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69721
We gather a set of white-listed instructions in isAllocSiteRemovable() and then
replace/erase them. But we don't know in general if the instructions in the set
have uses amongst themselves, so order of deletion makes a difference.
There's already a special-case for the llvm.objectsize intrinsic, so add another
for llvm.invariant.end.
Should fix:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43723
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69977
Summary:This patch fixes the following warnings uncovered by PVS
Studio:
/home/xbolva00/LLVM/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp
353 warn V612 An unconditional 'return' within a loop.
/home/xbolva00/LLVM/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp
456 err V502 Perhaps the '?:' operator works in a different way than it
was expected. The '?:' operator has a lower priority than the '=='
operator.
Authored By:etiotto
Reviewer:Meinersbur, kbarton, bmahjour, Whitney, xbolva00
Reviewed By:xbolva00
Subscribers:hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tag:LLVM
Differential Revision:https://reviews.llvm.org/D69821
This recommits 11ed1c0239 (reverted in
9f08ce0d21 for failing an assert) with a fix:
tryToWidenMemory() now first checks if the widening decision is to interleave,
thus maintaining previous behavior where tryToInterleaveMemory() was called
first, giving priority to interleave decisions over widening/scalarization. This
commit adds the test case that exposed this bug as a LIT.
This patch introduced a new bpf specific attribute which can
be added to struct or union definition. For example,
struct s { ... } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
union u { ... } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
The goal is to simplify user codes for cases
where preserve access index happens for certain struct/union,
so user does not need to use clang __builtin_preserve_access_index
for every members.
The attribute has no effect if -g is not specified.
When the attribute is specified and -g is specified, any member
access defined by that structure or union, including array subscript
access and inner records, will be preserved through
__builtin_preserve_{array,struct,union}_access_index()
IR intrinsics, which will enable relocation generation
in bpf backend.
The following is an example to illustrate the usage:
-bash-4.4$ cat t.c
#define __reloc__ __attribute__((preserve_access_index))
struct s1 {
int c;
} __reloc__;
struct s2 {
union {
struct s1 b[3];
};
} __reloc__;
struct s3 {
struct s2 a;
} __reloc__;
int test(struct s3 *arg) {
return arg->a.b[2].c;
}
-bash-4.4$ clang -target bpf -g -S -O2 t.c
A relocation with access string "0:0:0:0:2:0" will be generated
representing access offset of arg->a.b[2].c.
forward declaration with attribute is also handled properly such
that the attribute is copied and populated in real record definition.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69759
This change would have warned about the bug found in D62451.
No unit tests since the exception should never throw.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62452
Before when the overflow occured an assertion was triggered. Now check
whether the maximum has been reached and warn properly.
This patch fixes the original submission of PR19607.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63975
When bugreporter::trackExpressionValue() is invoked on a DeclRefExpr,
it tries to do most of its computations over the node in which
this DeclRefExpr is computed, rather than on the error node (or whatever node
is stuffed into it). One reason why we can't simply use the error node is
that the binding to that variable might have already disappeared from the state
by the time the bug is found.
In case of the inlined defensive checks visitor, the DeclRefExpr node
is in fact sometimes too *early*: the call in which the inlined defensive check
has happened might have not been entered yet.
Change the visitor to be fine with tracking dead symbols (which it is totally
capable of - the collapse point for the symbol is still well-defined), and fire
it up directly on the error node. Keep using "LVState" to find out which value
should we be tracking, so that there weren't any problems with accidentally
loading an ill-formed value from a dead variable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67932
until we can automatically fall back to p/P if g/G are not supported;
it looks like there is a bug in debugserver's g/G packets taht needs
to be fixed, or debugserver should stop supporting g/G until that bug
is fixed. But we need lldb to be able to fall back to p/P correctly
for that to be a viable workaround.
Luís Marques