Summary:
LLVM IR already has an attribute for speculative_load_hardening. Before
this commit, when a user passed the -mspeculative-load-hardening flag to
Clang, every function would have this attribute added to it. This Clang
attribute will allow users to opt into SLH on a function by function basis.
This can be applied to functions and Objective C methods.
Reviewers: chandlerc, echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54555
llvm-svn: 347586
A call to @llvm.trap can be expected to be cold (i.e. unlikely to be
reached in a normal program execution).
Outlining paths which unconditionally trap is an important memory
saving. As the hot/cold splitting pass (imho) should not treat all
noreturn calls as cold, explicitly mark @llvm.trap cold so that it can
be outlined.
Split out of https://reviews.llvm.org/D54244.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54329
llvm-svn: 346885
This adds the llvm-side support for post-inlining evaluation of the
__builtin_constant_p GCC intrinsic.
Also fixed SCCPSolver::visitCallSite to not blow up when seeing a call
to a function where canConstantFoldTo returns true, and one of the
arguments is a struct.
Updated from patch initially by Janusz Sobczak.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D4276
llvm-svn: 346322
Allows to disable direct TLS segment access (%fs or %gs). GCC supports
a similar flag, it can be useful in some circumstances, e.g. when a thread
context block needs to be updated directly from user space. More info
and specific use cases: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16145
There is another revision for clang as well.
Related: D53102
All X86 CodeGen tests appear to pass:
```
[46/47] Running lit suite /SourceCache/llvm-trunk-8.0/test/CodeGen
Testing Time: 23.17s
Expected Passes : 3801
Expected Failures : 15
Unsupported Tests : 8021
```
Reviewed by: Craig Topper.
Patch by nruslan (Ruslan Nikolaev).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53103
llvm-svn: 344723
Summary:
These new intrinsics have the semantics of the `minimum` and `maximum`
operations specified by the latest draft of IEEE 754-2018. Unlike
llvm.minnum and llvm.maxnum, these new intrinsics propagate NaNs and
always treat -0.0 as less than 0.0. `minimum` and `maximum` lower
directly to the existing `fminnan` and `fmaxnan` ISel DAG nodes. It is
safe to reuse these DAG nodes because before this patch were only
emitted in situations where there were known to be no NaN arguments or
where NaN propagation was correct and there were known to be no zero
arguments. I know of only four backends that lower fminnan and
fmaxnan: WebAssembly, ARM, AArch64, and SystemZ, and each of these
lowers fminnan and fmaxnan to instructions that are compatible with
the IEEE 754-2018 semantics.
Reviewers: aheejin, dschuff, sunfish, javed.absar
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, dexonsmith, kristina, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52764
llvm-svn: 344437
Summary:
Remove note about summary being ignored. Update to reflect the
fact that summary is now parsed by llvm-as.
While here, fix one summary format that changed since the initial
implementation.
Reviewers: dexonsmith
Subscribers: inglorion, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51540
llvm-svn: 342479
Load Hardening.
Wires up the existing pass to work with a proper IR attribute rather
than just a hidden/internal flag. The internal flag continues to work
for now, but I'll likely remove it soon.
Most of the churn here is adding the IR attribute. I talked about this
Kristof Beyls and he seemed at least initially OK with this direction.
The idea of using a full attribute here is that we *do* expect at least
some forms of this for other architectures. There isn't anything
*inherently* x86-specific about this technique, just that we only have
an implementation for x86 at the moment.
While we could potentially expose this as a Clang-level attribute as
well, that seems like a good question to defer for the moment as it
isn't 100% clear whether that or some other programmer interface (or
both?) would be best. We'll defer the programmer interface side of this
for now, but at least get to the point where the feature can be enabled
without relying on implementation details.
This also allows us to do something that was really hard before: we can
enable *just* the indirect call retpolines when using SLH. For x86, we
don't have any other way to mitigate indirect calls. Other architectures
may take a different approach of course, and none of this is surfaced to
user-level flags.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51157
llvm-svn: 341363
Most users won't have to worry about this as all of the
'getOrInsertFunction' functions on Module will default to the program
address space.
An overload has been added to Function::Create to abstract away the
details for most callers.
This is based on https://reviews.llvm.org/D37054 but without the changes to
make passing a Module to Function::Create() mandatory. I have also added
some more tests and fixed the LLParser to accept call instructions for
types in the program address space.
Reviewed By: bjope
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47541
llvm-svn: 340519
highlighting syntax.
Most of them already were like this, and the Sphinx runs on the docs
build bot seems to be substantially more picky and/or not have support
for a bunch of the syntax here. Hopefully this will let it progress past
this.
My previous attempt to fix the syntax made the `opt` tool happy, but no
idea what the Sphinx stuff is really looking for, and the fact that
other blocks already just use `text` led me to this solution.
llvm-svn: 338983
Notably, just close two of the debug info metadata nodes early rather
than leaving them open with `...` which won't ever lex correctly. And
add the missing `:` on the count labels.
Slowly progressing through all of the warnings on the documentation
build bot. Sorry to do this one commit at a time, but despite my best
efforts I can't trigger these errors locally.
llvm-svn: 338982
Sphinx syntax highlighter.
This example also doesn't really make sense. There is no control flow or
clarification of what the `Safe:` block exists to do... If we want
examples here, we should make them much more clear in addition to making
them well formed IR sequences.
llvm-svn: 338981
This should make the semantics of DIExpressions within llvm.dbg.{addr,
declare, value} easier to understand.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49572
llvm-svn: 338182
Violating the invariants specified by attributes is undefined behavior.
Maybe we could use poison instead for some of the parameter attributes,
but I don't think it's worthwhile.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49041
llvm-svn: 337947
Add some quick words for unroll and jam to the list of passes and add
unroll_and_jam metadata to the language ref.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49349
llvm-svn: 337448
We need to explicitly state what happens when an invariant promised by
load metadata is violated at runtime, since it's come up repeatedly.
It's possible we want to specify that the result of the load is poison
in some cases, rather than undefined behavior, if the constraint is
violated. That would allow preserving the metadata when the load is
hoisted, but doesn't allow propagating metadata based on control flow.
We currently do transforms based on control flow for nonnull metadata
(in PromoteMemToReg).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47854
llvm-svn: 337325
Clarify that violating nnan and ninf can lead to undefined behavior.
This allows more aggressive optimizations based on those assumptions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47963
llvm-svn: 337323
As discussed here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123292.htmlhttp://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-July/124400.html
We want to add rotate intrinsics because the IR expansion of that pattern is 4+ instructions,
and we can lose pieces of the pattern before it gets to the backend. Generalizing the operation
by allowing 2 different input values (plus the 3rd shift/rotate amount) gives us a "funnel shift"
operation which may also be a single hardware instruction.
Initially, I thought we needed to define new DAG nodes for these ops, and I spent time working
on that (much larger patch), but then I concluded that we don't need it. At least as a first
step, we have all of the backend support necessary to match these ops...because it was required.
And shepherding these through the IR optimizer is the primary concern, so the IR intrinsics are
likely all that we'll ever need.
There was also a question about converting the intrinsics to the existing ROTL/ROTR DAG nodes
(along with improving the oversized shift documentation). Again, I don't think that's strictly
necessary (as the test results here prove). That can be an efficiency improvement as a small
follow-up patch.
So all we're left with is documentation, definition of the IR intrinsics, and DAG builder support.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49242
llvm-svn: 337221
Let's be conservative here; it matches what we actually implemented, and
it should be rare in practice anyway.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49042
llvm-svn: 336744
Summary:
Support for this option is needed for building Linux kernel.
This is a very frequently requested feature by kernel developers.
More details : https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/4/601
GCC option description for -fdelete-null-pointer-checks:
This Assume that programs cannot safely dereference null pointers,
and that no code or data element resides at address zero.
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is the inverse of this implying that
null pointer dereferencing is not undefined.
This feature is implemented in LLVM IR in this CL as the function attribute
"null-pointer-is-valid"="true" in IR (Under review at D47894).
The CL updates several passes that assumed null pointer dereferencing is
undefined to not optimize when the "null-pointer-is-valid"="true"
attribute is present.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, efriedma, jyknight, chandlerc, rnk, srhines, void, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: efriedma, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: eraman, haicheng, george.burgess.iv, drinkcat, theraven, reames, sanjoy, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47895
llvm-svn: 336613
In non-zero address spaces, we were reporting that an object at `null`
always occupies zero bytes. This is incorrect in many cases, so just
return `unknown` in those cases for now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48860
llvm-svn: 336611
Summary:
This patch introduce new intrinsic -
strip.invariant.group that was described in the
RFC: Devirtualization v2
Reviewers: rsmith, hfinkel, nlopes, sanjoy, amharc, kuhar
Subscribers: arsenm, nhaehnle, JDevlieghere, hiraditya, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47103
Co-authored-by: Krzysztof Pszeniczny <krzysztof.pszeniczny@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 336073
IEEE 754 defines the expected result on overflow. As far as I know,
hardware implementations (of f16), and compiler-rt (__floatuntisf)
correctly return +-Inf on overflow. And I can't think of any useful
transform that would take advantage of overflow being undefined here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47807
llvm-svn: 334777
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
Summary:
Implements AsmWriter support for printing the module summary index to
assembly with the format discussed in the RFC "LLVM Assembly format for
ThinLTO Summary".
Implements just enough of the parsing support to recognize and ignore
the summary entries. As agreed in the RFC thread, this will be the
behavior when assembling the IR. A follow on change will implement
parsing/assembling of the summary entries for use by tools that
currently build the summary index from bitcode.
Reviewers: dexonsmith, pcc
Subscribers: inglorion, eraman, steven_wu, dblaikie, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46699
llvm-svn: 333335
Summary:
This feature is not needed, but it might be usefull in the future
to use metadata to mark what which function should support it
(and strip it when not).
Reviewers: rsmith, sanjoy, amharc, kuhar
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45419
llvm-svn: 332787
Summary:
Introduce the ShadowCallStack function attribute. It's added to
functions compiled with -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack in order to mark
functions to be instrumented by a ShadowCallStack pass to be submitted
in a separate change.
Reviewers: pcc, kcc, kubamracek
Reviewed By: pcc, kcc
Subscribers: cryptoad, mehdi_amini, javed.absar, llvm-commits, kcc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44800
llvm-svn: 329108
Zola Bridges