-fno-inline-functions, -O0, and optnone.
These were really, really tangled together:
- We used the noinline LLVM attribute for -fno-inline
- But not for -fno-inline-functions (breaking LTO)
- But we did use it for -finline-hint-functions (yay, LTO is happy!)
- But we didn't for -O0 (LTO is sad yet again...)
- We had weird structuring of CodeGenOpts with both an inlining
enumeration and a boolean. They interacted in weird ways and
needlessly.
- A *lot* of set smashing went on with setting these, and then got worse
when we considered optnone and other inlining-effecting attributes.
- A bunch of inline affecting attributes were managed in a completely
different place from -fno-inline.
- Even with -fno-inline we failed to put the LLVM noinline attribute
onto many generated function definitions because they didn't show up
as AST-level functions.
- If you passed -O0 but -finline-functions we would run the normal
inliner pass in LLVM despite it being in the O0 pipeline, which really
doesn't make much sense.
- Lastly, we used things like '-fno-inline' to manipulate the pass
pipeline which forced the pass pipeline to be much more
parameterizable than it really needs to be. Instead we can *just* use
the optimization level to select a pipeline and control the rest via
attributes.
Sadly, this causes a bunch of churn in tests because we don't run the
optimizer in the tests and check the contents of attribute sets. It
would be awesome if attribute sets were a bit more FileCheck friendly,
but oh well.
I think this is a significant improvement and should remove the semantic
need to change what inliner pass we run in order to comply with the
requested inlining semantics by relying completely on attributes. It
also cleans up tho optnone and related handling a bit.
One unfortunate aspect of this is that for generating alwaysinline
routines like those in OpenMP we end up removing noinline and then
adding alwaysinline. I tried a bunch of other approaches, but because we
recompute function attributes from scratch and don't have a declaration
here I couldn't find anything substantially cleaner than this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28053
llvm-svn: 290398
Wire it through everywhere we have support for fastcall, essentially.
This allows us to parse the MSVC "14" CTP headers, but we will
miscompile them because LLVM doesn't support __vectorcall yet.
Reviewed By: Aaron Ballman
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5808
llvm-svn: 220573
Fixes PR21027. The MIDL compiler produces code that does this.
If we wanted to improve the warning, I think we could do this:
void __stdcall f(); // Don't warn without -Wstrict-prototypes.
void g() {
f(); // Might warn, the user probably meant for f to take no args.
f(1, 2, 3); // Warn, we have no idea what args f takes.
f(1); // Error, this is insane, one of these calls is broken.
}
Reviewers: thakis
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5481
llvm-svn: 218394
According to lore, we used to verifier-fail on:
void __thiscall f();
int main() { f(1); }
So that's fixed now. System headers use prototype-less __stdcall functions,
so make that a warning that's DefaultError -- then it fires on regular code
but is suppressed in system headers.
Since it's used in system headers, we have codegen tests for this; massage
them slightly so that they still compile.
llvm-svn: 218166
Summary:
Makes functions with implicit calling convention compatible with
function types with a matching explicit calling convention. This fixes
things like calls to qsort(), which has an explicit __cdecl attribute on
the comparator in Windows headers.
Clang will now infer the calling convention from the declarator. There
are two cases when the CC must be adjusted during redeclaration:
1. When defining a non-inline static method.
2. When redeclaring a function with an implicit or mismatched
convention.
Fixes PR13457, and allows clang to compile CommandLine.cpp for the
Microsoft C++ ABI.
Excellent test cases provided by Alexander Zinenko!
Reviewers: rsmith
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1231
llvm-svn: 189412
if the definition has a non-variadic prototype with compatible
parameters. Therefore, the default rule for such calls must be to
use a non-variadic convention. Achieve this by casting the callee to
the function type with which it is required to be compatible, unless
the target specifically opts out and insists that unprototyped calls
should use the variadic rules. The only case of that I'm aware of is
the x86-64 convention, which passes arguments the same way in both
cases but also sets a small amount of extra information; here we seek
to maintain compatibility with GCC, which does set this when calling
an unprototyped function.
Addresses PR10810 and PR10713.
llvm-svn: 140241
Chandler Carruth