This will make it clearer when we are actually resetting a sequence's progress
vs just changing state. This is an important distinction because the former case
clears any pointers that we are tracking while the later does not.
llvm-svn: 179963
This occurs due to an alloca representing a separate ownership from the
original pointer. Thus consider the following pseudo-IR:
objc_retain(%a)
for (...) {
objc_retain(%a)
%block <- %a
F(%block)
objc_release(%block)
}
objc_release(%a)
From the perspective of the optimizer, the %block is a separate
provenance from the original %a. Thus the optimizer pairs up the inner
retain for %a and the outer release from %a, resulting in segfaults.
This is fixed by noting that the signature of a mismatch of
retain/releases inside the for loop is a Use/CanRelease top down with an
None bottom up (since bottom up the Retain-CanRelease-Use-Release
sequence is completed by the inner objc_retain, but top down due to the
differing provenance from the objc_release said sequence is not
completed). In said case in CheckForCFGHazards, we now clear the state
of %a implying that no pairing will occur.
Additionally a test case is included.
rdar://12969722
llvm-svn: 179747
The normal dataflow sequence in the ARC optimizer consists of the following
states:
Retain -> CanRelease -> Use -> Release
The optimizer before this patch stored the uses that determine the lifetime of
the retainable object pointer when it bottom up hits a retain or when top down
it hits a release. This is correct for an imprecise lifetime scenario since what
we are trying to do is remove retains/releases while making sure that no
``CanRelease'' (which is usually a call) deallocates the given pointer before we
get to the ``Use'' (since that would cause a segfault).
If we are considering the precise lifetime scenario though, this is not
correct. In such a situation, we *DO* care about the previous sequence, but
additionally, we wish to track the uses resulting from the following incomplete
sequences:
Retain -> CanRelease -> Release (TopDown)
Retain <- Use <- Release (BottomUp)
*NOTE* This patch looks large but the most of it consists of updating
test cases. Additionally this fix exposed an additional bug. I removed
the test case that expressed said bug and will recommit it with the fix
in a little bit.
llvm-svn: 178921
Cleaned up trailing whitespace and added extra slashes in front of a
function level comment so that it follow the convention of having 3
slashes.
llvm-svn: 178712
The semantics of ARC implies that a pointer passed into an objc_autorelease
must live until some point (potentially down the stack) where an
autorelease pool is popped. On the other hand, an
objc_autoreleaseReturnValue just signifies that the object must live
until the end of the given function at least.
Thus objc_autorelease is stronger than objc_autoreleaseReturnValue in
terms of the semantics of ARC* implying that performing the given
strength reduction without any knowledge of how this relates to
the autorelease pool pop that is further up the stack violates the
semantics of ARC.
*Even though objc_autoreleaseReturnValue if you know that no RV
optimization will occur is more computationally expensive.
llvm-svn: 178612
If an objc_retainBlock has the copy_on_escape metadata attached to it
AND if the block pointer argument only escapes down the stack, we are
allowed to strength reduce the objc_retainBlock to to an objc_retain and
thus optimize it.
Current there is logic in the ARC data flow analysis to handle
this case which is complicated and involved making distinctions in
between objc_retainBlock and objc_retain in certain places and
considering them the same in others.
This patch simplifies said code by:
1. Performing the strength reduction in the initial ARC peephole
analysis (ObjCARCOpts::OptimizeIndividualCalls).
2. Changes the ARC dataflow analysis (which runs after the peephole
analysis) to consider all objc_retainBlock calls to not be optimizable
(since if the call was optimizable, we would have strength reduced it
already).
This patch leaves in the infrastructure in the ARC dataflow analysis to
handle this case, which due to 2 will just be dead code. I am doing this
on purpose to separate the removal of the old code from the testing of
the new code.
<rdar://problem/13249661>.
llvm-svn: 178284
This will allow for verification and analysis of the merge function of
the data flow analyses in the ARC optimizer.
The actual implementation of this feature is by introducing calls to
the functions llvm.arc.annotation.{bottomup,topdown}.{bbstart,bbend}
which are only declared. Each such call takes in a pointer to a global
with the same name as the pointer whose provenance is being tracked and
a pointer whose name is one of our Sequence states and points to a
string that contains the same name.
To ensure that the optimizer does not consider these annotations in any
way, I made it so that the annotations are considered to be of IC_None
type.
A test case is included for this commit and the previous
ObjCARCAnnotation commit.
llvm-svn: 177952
Previously the inner works of the data flow analysis in ObjCARCOpts was hard to
get out of the optimizer for analysis of bugs or testing. All of the current ARC
unit tests are based off of testing the effect of the data flow
analysis (i.e. what statements are removed or moved, etc.). This creates
weakness in the current unit testing regimem since we are not actually testing
what effects various instructions have on the modeled pointer state.
Additionally in order to analyze a bug in the optimizer, one would need to track
by hand what the optimizer was actually doing either through use of DEBUG
statements or through the usage of a debugger, both yielding large loses in
developer productivity.
This patch deals with these two issues by providing ARC annotation
metadata that annotates instructions with the state changes that they cause in
various pointers as well as provides metadata to annotate provenance sources.
Specifically, we introduce the following metadata types:
1. llvm.arc.annotation.bottomup.
2. llvm.arc.annotation.topdown.
3. llvm.arc.annotation.provenancesource.
llvm.arc.annotation.{bottomup,topdown}: These annotations describes a state
change in a pointer when we are visiting instructions bottomup/topdown
respectively. The output format for both is the same:
!1 = metadata !{metadata !"(test,%x)", metadata !"S_Release", metadata !"S_Use"}
The first element is a string tuple with the following format:
(function,variable name)
The second two elements of the metadata show the previous state of the
pointer (in this case S_Release) and the new state of the pointer (S_Use). We
write the metadata in such a manner to ensure that it is easy for outside tools
to parse. This is important since I am currently working on a tool for taking
this information and pretty printing it besides the IR and that can be used for
LIT style testing via the generation of an index.
llvm.arc.annotation.provenancesource: This metadata is used to annotate
instructions which act as provenance sources, i.e. ones that introduce a
new (from the optimizer's perspective) non-argument pointer to track. This
enables cross-referencing in between provenance sources and the state changes
that occur to them.
This is still a work in progress. Additionally I plan on committing
later today additions to the annotations that annotate at the top/bottom
of basic blocks the state of the various pointers being tracked.
*NOTE* The metadata support is conditionally compiled into libObjCARCOpts only
when we are producing a debug build of llvm/clang and even so are
disabled by default. To enable the annotation metadata, pass in
-enable-objc-arc-annotations to opt.
llvm-svn: 177951
1. Moved a comment from ObjCARCOpts.cpp -> ObjCARCContract.cpp.
2. Removed a comment from ObjCARCOpts.cpp that was already moved to
ObjCARCAliasAnalysis.h/.cpp.
llvm-svn: 174581
This also required adding 2x headers Dependency Analysis.h/Provenance Analysis.h
and a .cpp file DependencyAnalysis.cpp to unentangle the dependencies inbetween
ObjCARCContract and ObjCARCOpts.
llvm-svn: 173760
Michael Gottesman