Added the following attributes to all LLVM syntax files:
* allocsize
* cold
* convergent
* dereferenceable_or_null
* hot
* inaccessiblemem_or_argmemonly
* inaccessiblememonly
* inalloca
* jumptable
* nocallback
* nocf_check
* noduplicate
* nofree
* nomerge
* noprofile
* nosync
* null_pointer_is_valid
* optforfuzzing
* preallocated
* safestack
* sanitize_hwaddress
* sanitize_memtag
* shadowcallstack
* speculative_load_hardening
* swifterror
* syncscope
* tailcc
* willreturn
I generated that list by comparing:
* Attributes.inc (generated from Attributes.td), and
* the Vim syntax file: llvm/utils/vim/syntax/llvm.vim
My original intention was to focus on the Vim syntax file. Since other
syntax files are also out-of-date, I added these attributes (if missing)
to other files as well. Note that in the other sytnax files (i.e. for
Emacs, VScode and Kate), there will be other attributes missing too.
I've also sorted all attributes alphabetically. Otherwise it's really
hard to automate adding new attributes. And I think that it was the
original intent to keep all of them ordered alphabetically.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97627
It's currently ambiguous in IR whether the source language explicitly
did not want a stack a stack protector (in C, via function attribute
no_stack_protector) or doesn't care for any given function.
It's common for code that manipulates the stack via inline assembly or
that has to set up its own stack canary (such as the Linux kernel) would
like to avoid stack protectors in certain functions. In this case, we've
been bitten by numerous bugs where a callee with a stack protector is
inlined into an __attribute__((__no_stack_protector__)) caller, which
generally breaks the caller's assumptions about not having a stack
protector. LTO exacerbates the issue.
While developers can avoid this by putting all no_stack_protector
functions in one translation unit together and compiling those with
-fno-stack-protector, it's generally not very ergonomic or as
ergonomic as a function attribute, and still doesn't work for LTO. See also:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20200915172658.1432732-1-rkir@google.com/https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200918201436.2932360-30-samitolvanen@google.com/T/#u
Typically, when inlining a callee into a caller, the caller will be
upgraded in its level of stack protection (see adjustCallerSSPLevel()).
By adding an explicit attribute in the IR when the function attribute is
used in the source language, we can now identify such cases and prevent
inlining. Block inlining when the callee and caller differ in the case that one
contains `nossp` when the other has `ssp`, `sspstrong`, or `sspreq`.
Fixes pr/47479.
Reviewed By: void
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956
LLVM IR currently assumes some form of forward progress. This form is
not explicitly defined anywhere, and is the cause of miscompilations
in most languages that are not C++11 or later. This implicit forward progress
guarantee can not be opted out of on a function level nor on a loop
level. Languages such as C (C11 and later), C++ (pre-C++11), and Rust
have different forward progress requirements and this needs to be
evident in the IR.
Specifically, C11 and onwards (6.8.5, Paragraph 6) states that "An
iteration statement whose controlling expression is not a constant
expression, that performs no input/output operations, does not access
volatile objects, and performs no synchronization or atomic operations
in its body, controlling expression, or (in the case of for statement)
its expression-3, may be assumed by the implementation to terminate."
C++11 and onwards does not have this assumption, and instead assumes
that every thread must make progress as defined in [intro.progress] when
it comes to scheduling.
This was initially brought up in [0] as a bug, a solution was presented
in [1] which is the current workaround, and the predecessor to this
change was [2].
After defining a notion of forward progress for IR, there are two
options to address this:
1) Set the default to assuming Forward Progress and provide an opt-out for functions and an opt-in for loops.
2) Set the default to not assuming Forward Progress and provide an opt-in for functions, and an opt-in for loops.
Option 2) has been selected because only C++11 and onwards have a
forward progress requirement and it makes sense for them to opt-into it
via the defined `mustprogress` function attribute. The `mustprogress`
function attribute indicates that the function is required to make
forward progress as defined. This is sharply in contrast to the status
quo where this is implicitly assumed. In addition, `willreturn` implies `mustprogress`.
The background for why this definition was chosen is in [3] and for why
the option was chosen is in [4] and the corresponding thread(s). The implementation is in D85393, the
clang patch is in D86841, the LoopDeletion patch is in D86844, the
Inliner patches are in D87180 and D87262, and there will be more
incoming.
[0] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=965#c25
[1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118558.html
[2] https://reviews.llvm.org/D65718
[3] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-September/144919.html
[4] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-September/145023.html
Reviewed By: jdoerfert, efriedma, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86233
This commit adds a new keyword in lit called ALLOW_RETRIES. This keyword
takes a single integer as an argument, and it allows the test to fail that
number of times before it first succeeds.
This work attempts to make the existing test_retry_attempts more flexible
by allowing by-test customization, as well as eliminate libc++'s FLAKY_TEST
custom logic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76288
When the target option GuaranteedTailCallOpt is specified, calls with
the fastcc calling convention will be transformed into tail calls if
they are in tail position. This diff adds a new calling convention,
tailcc, currently supported only on X86, which behaves the same way as
fastcc, except that the GuaranteedTailCallOpt flag does not need to
enabled in order to enable tail call optimization.
Patch by Dwight Guth <dwight.guth@runtimeverification.com>!
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, paquette, rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67855
llvm-svn: 373976
This patch accompanies the RFC posted here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-October/127239.html
This patch adds a new CallBr IR instruction to support asm-goto
inline assembly like gcc as used by the linux kernel. This
instruction is both a call instruction and a terminator
instruction with multiple successors. Only inline assembly
usage is supported today.
This also adds a new INLINEASM_BR opcode to SelectionDAG and
MachineIR to represent an INLINEASM block that is also
considered a terminator instruction.
There will likely be more bug fixes and optimizations to follow
this, but we felt it had reached a point where we would like to
switch to an incremental development model.
Patch by Craig Topper, Alexander Ivchenko, Mikhail Dvoretckii
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53765
llvm-svn: 353563
Summary:
Currently vim syntax highlighting recognizes 'CHECK:' as a special
comment, but not CHECK-DAG, CHECK-NOT and other CHECKs. This patch
adds rules for these comments.
Reviewers: chandlerc, compnerd, rogfer01
Reviewed By: rogfer01
Subscribers: rogfer01, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43289
llvm-svn: 325599
Rename the enum value from X86_64_Win64 to plain Win64.
The symbol exposed in the textual IR is changed from 'x86_64_win64cc'
to 'win64cc', but the numeric value is kept, keeping support for
old bitcode.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34474
llvm-svn: 308208
A large number of tests in the LLVM tree use the default (CHECK) prefix
to indicate checked expressions via FileCheck. Highlight it as a
special comment. Although this wont get all the instances of the
checked patters, it is strictly better than the current state.
llvm-svn: 285927
This achieves the same result as previously by using line wrapping. This allows
us to have one keyword per line which makes adding a new keyword significantly
easier, especially if they are inserted in a lexicographical sort order as you
no longer need to reflow the content around it.
This only does the keywords as that is the group which changes more often.
llvm-svn: 275248
HHVM calling convention, hhvmcc, is used by HHVM JIT for
functions in translated cache. We currently support LLVM back end to
generate code for X86-64 and may support other architectures in the
future.
In HHVM calling convention any GP register could be used to pass and
return values, with the exception of R12 which is reserved for
thread-local area and is callee-saved. Other than R12, we always
pass RBX and RBP as args, which are our virtual machine's stack pointer
and frame pointer respectively.
When we enter translation cache via hhvmcc function, we expect
the stack to be aligned at 16 bytes, i.e. skewed by 8 bytes as opposed
to standard ABI alignment. This affects stack object alignment and stack
adjustments for function calls.
One extra calling convention, hhvm_ccc, is used to call C++ helpers from
HHVM's translation cache. It is almost identical to standard C calling
convention with an exception of first argument which is passed in RBP
(before we use RDI, RSI, etc.)
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12681
llvm-svn: 248832
dejagnu.
I wonder if it would be useful to handle FileCheck prefixes specially?
Especially if we could get some error checking. Suggestions welcome.
Patches more welcome as I have no idea what I'm doing with vim
script....
llvm-svn: 242267
This brings the utils/vim folder into a more vim-like format by moving
the syntax hightlighting files into a syntax subdirectory. It adds
some minimal settings that everyone should agree on to ftdetect/ftplugin and
features a new indentation plugin for .ll files.
llvm-svn: 235369
Fraser Cormack