Today the safepoint IR verifier catches some unrelocated uses of base
pointers that are actually valid.
With this change, we narrow down the set of false positives.
Specifically, the verifier knows about compares to null and compares
between 2 unrelocated pointers.
Reviewed by: skatkov
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35057
llvm-svn: 307392
Added a new Enum to identify if the base pointer is exclusively null or
exlusively some constant or not exclusively any constant.
Converted the base pointer identification method from recursive to
iterative form.
llvm-svn: 307340
Going through the Constant methods requires redetermining that the Constant is a ConstantInt and then calling isZero/isOne/isMinusOne.
llvm-svn: 307292
Original Patch and summary by Philip Reames.
RewriteStatepointsForGC tries to rewrite a function in a manner where
the optimizer can't end up using a pointer value after it might have
been relocated by a safepoint. This pass checks the invariant that
RSForGC is supposed to establish and that (if we constructed semantics
correctly) later passes must preserve.
This has been a really useful diagnostic tool when initially developing
the rewriting scheme and has found numerous bugs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D15940
Reviewed by: swaroop.sridhar, mjacob
Subscribers: llvm-commits
llvm-svn: 307112
Summary:
Add an option to prevent diagnostics that do not meet a minimum hotness
threshold from being output. When generating optimization remarks for
large codebases with a ton of cold code paths, this option can be used
to limit the optimization remark output at a reasonable size. Discussion of
this change can be read here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-June/114377.html
Reviewers: anemet, davidxl, hfinkel
Reviewed By: anemet
Subscribers: qcolombet, javed.absar, fhahn, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34867
llvm-svn: 306912
Summary:
Depends on https://reviews.llvm.org/D34865.
With the Clang uses of the old spelling having been removed in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34865, get rid of the old "diagnostic hotness"
spellings in favor of the new "diagnostics hotness".
Reviewers: anemet, davidxl
Reviewed By: anemet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34866
llvm-svn: 306866
Summary:
To enable profile hotness information in diagnostics output, Clang takes
the option `-fdiagnostics-show-hotness` -- that's "diagnostics", with an
"s" at the end. Clang also defines `CodeGenOptions::DiagnosticsWithHotness`.
LLVM, on the other hand, defines
`LLVMContext::getDiagnosticHotnessRequested` -- that's "diagnostic", not
"diagnostics". It's a small difference, but it's confusing, typo-inducing, and
frustrating.
Add a new method with the spelling "diagnostics", and "deprecate" the
old spelling.
Reviewers: anemet, davidxl
Reviewed By: anemet
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mehdi_amini
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34864
llvm-svn: 306848
Summary:
Some transforms assume that DT.verifyDomInfo() is not expensive and call it even when ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS is not set.
This patch disables expensive Dominator Tree verification (reachability, parent property, sibling property) to fix
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33656 | PR33656 ]].
Note that this is only a temporary fix.
Reviewers: dberlin, chapuni, kparzysz, grosser
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34894
llvm-svn: 306839
Summary:
This patch adds an additional level of verification - it checks parent and sibling properties of a tree. By definition, every tree with these two properties is a dominator tree.
It is possible to run those check by running llvm with `-verify-dom-info=1`.
Bootstrapping clang and building the llvm test suite with this option enabled doesn't yield any errors.
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, chandlerc
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34482
llvm-svn: 306711
This method doesn't do any initializing. It just contains asserts. So renaming to AssertOK makes it consistent with similar instructions in other Instruction classes.
llvm-svn: 306277
Also document the attribute, since "probe-stack" already is.
Reviewed By: majnemer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34528
llvm-svn: 306069
Summary:
These intrinsics aren't used by clang and haven't been for a while.
There's some really terrible codegen in the 32-bit target for avx512bw due to i64 not being legal. But as I said these intrinsics aren't used by clang even before this patch so this codegen reflects our clang behavior today.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, zvi, igorb
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34389
llvm-svn: 306047
This attribute is used to ensure the guard page is triggered on stack
overflow. Stack frames larger than the guard page size will generate
a call to __probestack to touch each page so the guard page won't
be skipped.
Reviewed By: majnemer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34386
llvm-svn: 305939
Summary: As far as I can tell we should be able to implement these almost the same way we do unsigned, but using signed comparisons and checks for min signed value instead of min unsigned value.
Reviewers: pete, davide, sanjoy
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33815
llvm-svn: 305607
Summary:
Background: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/112779.html
This change is to alter the prototype for the atomic memcpy intrinsic. The prototype itself is being changed to more closely resemble the semantics and parameters of the llvm.memcpy intrinsic -- to ease later combination of the llvm.memcpy and atomic memcpy intrinsics. Furthermore, the name of the atomic memcpy intrinsic is being changed to make it clear that it is not a generic atomic memcpy, but specifically a memcpy is unordered atomic.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy, efriedma
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, anna, llvm-commits, skatkov
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33240
llvm-svn: 305558
If a regular LTO module has a summary index, then instead of linking
it into the combined regular LTO module right away, add it to the
combined summary index and associate it with a special module that
represents the combined regular LTO module.
Any such modules are linked during LTO::run(), at which time we use
the results of summary-based dead stripping to control whether to
link prevailing symbols.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33922
llvm-svn: 305482
Summary:
This patch is part of 3 patches that together form a single patch, but must be introduced in stages in order not to break things.
The way that LLVM interprets DW_OP_plus in DIExpression nodes is basically that of the DW_OP_plus_uconst operator since LLVM expects an unsigned constant operand. This unnecessarily restricts the DW_OP_plus operator, preventing it from being used to describe the evaluation of runtime values on the expression stack. These patches try to align the semantics of DW_OP_plus and DW_OP_minus with that of the DWARF definition, which pops two elements off the expression stack, performs the operation and pushes the result back on the stack.
This is done in three stages:
• The first patch (LLVM) adds support for DW_OP_plus_uconst.
• The second patch (Clang) contains changes all its uses from DW_OP_plus to DW_OP_plus_uconst.
• The third patch (LLVM) changes the semantics of DW_OP_plus and DW_OP_minus to be in line with its DWARF meaning. This patch includes the bitcode upgrade from legacy DIExpressions.
Patch by Sander de Smalen.
Reviewers: echristo, pcc, aprantl
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: fhahn, javed.absar, aprantl, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33894
llvm-svn: 305386
Summary:
This patch is part of 3 patches that together form a single patch, but must be introduced in stages in order not to break things.
The way that LLVM interprets DW_OP_plus in DIExpression nodes is basically that of the DW_OP_plus_uconst operator since LLVM expects an unsigned constant operand. This unnecessarily restricts the DW_OP_plus operator, preventing it from being used to describe the evaluation of runtime values on the expression stack. These patches try to align the semantics of DW_OP_plus and DW_OP_minus with that of the DWARF definition, which pops two elements off the expression stack, performs the operation and pushes the result back on the stack.
This is done in three stages:
• The first patch (LLVM) adds support for DW_OP_plus_uconst.
• The second patch (Clang) contains changes all its uses from DW_OP_plus to DW_OP_plus_uconst.
• The third patch (LLVM) changes the semantics of DW_OP_plus and DW_OP_minus to be in line with its DWARF meaning. This patch includes the bitcode upgrade from legacy DIExpressions.
Patch by Sander de Smalen.
Reviewers: pcc, echristo, aprantl
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: fhahn, aprantl, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33892
llvm-svn: 305304
User has 3 signatures for operator new today. They take a single size, a size and a number of users, and a size, number of users, and descriptor size.
Historically there used to only be one signature that took size and a number of uses. Long ago derived classes implemented their own versions that took just a size and would call the size and use count version. Then they left an unimplemented signature for the size and use count signature from User. As we moved to C++11 this unimplemented signature because = delete.
Since then operator new has picked up two new signatures for operator new. But when the 3 argument version was added it was never added to the delete list in all of the derived classes where the 2 argument version is deleted. This makes things inconsistent.
I believe once one version of operator new is created in a derived class name hiding will take care of making all of the base class signatures unavailable. So I don't think the deleted lines are needed at all.
This patch removes all of the deletes in cases where there is an override or there is already a delete of another signature (that should trigger name hiding too).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34120
llvm-svn: 305251
If we're shrinking a binary operation, it may be the case that the new
operations wraps where the old didn't. If this happens, the behavior
should be well-defined. So, we can't always carry wrapping flags with us
when we shrink operations.
If we do, we get incorrect optimizations in cases like:
void foo(const unsigned char *from, unsigned char *to, int n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
to[i] = from[i] - 128;
}
which gets optimized to:
void foo(const unsigned char *from, unsigned char *to, int n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
to[i] = from[i] | 128;
}
Because:
- InstCombine turned `sub i32 %from.i, 128` into
`add nuw nsw i32 %from.i, 128`.
- LoopVectorize vectorized the add to be `add nuw nsw <16 x i8>` with a
vector full of `i8 128`s
- InstCombine took advantage of the fact that the newly-shrunken add
"couldn't wrap", and changed the `add` to an `or`.
InstCombine seems happy to figure out whether we can add nuw/nsw on its
own, so I just decided to drop the flags. There are already a number of
places in LoopVectorize where we rely on InstCombine to clean up.
llvm-svn: 305053
These used to be virtual methods that would enable doing the right thing with only a TerminatorInst pointer. I believe they were also acting as vtable anchors in my cases. I think the fact that they had a separate name ending in V was to allow a version without V to be called without a virtual call in a pre-C++11 final keyword world.
Where possible the base methods in TerminatorInst dispatch directly to the public methods in the classes that have the same signature. For some classes this wasn't possible so I've left private method versions that match the name and signature of the version in TerminatorInst. All versions have been moved into the class definitions since we no longer need vtable anchors here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34011
llvm-svn: 305028
This creates a new library called BinaryFormat that has all of
the headers from llvm/Support containing structure and layout
definitions for various types of binary formats like dwarf, coff,
elf, etc as well as the code for identifying a file from its
magic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33843
llvm-svn: 304864
Summary:
Expanding the loop idiom test for memcpy to also recognize
unordered atomic memcpy. The only difference for recognizing
an unordered atomic memcpy and instead of a normal memcpy is
that the loads and/or stores involved are unordered atomic operations.
Background: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/112779.html
Patch by Daniel Neilson!
Reviewers: reames, anna, skatkov
Reviewed By: reames, anna
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33243
llvm-svn: 304806
I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
Truncate currently uses a udivrem call which is going to be slow particularly for larger than 64-bit widths.
As far as I can tell all we were trying to do was modulo LowerDiv by (MaxValue+1) and make sure whatever value was effectively subtracted from LowerDiv was also subtracted from UpperDiv.
This patch recognizes that MaxValue+1 is a power of 2 so we can just use a bitwise AND to accomplish a modulo operation or isolate the upper bits.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32672
llvm-svn: 304733
This removes a quadratic behavior in assert-enabled builds.
GVN propagates the equivalence from a condition into the blocks guarded by the
condition. E.g. for 'if (a == 7) { ... }', 'a' will be replaced in the block
with 7. It does this by replacing all the uses of 'a' that are dominated by
the true edge.
For a switch with N cases and U uses of the value, this will mean N * U calls
to 'dominates'. Asserting isSingleEdge in 'dominates' make this N^2 * U
because this function checks for the uniqueness of the edge. I.e. traverses
each edge between the SwitchInst's block and the cases.
The change removes the assert and makes 'dominates' works correctly in the
presence of non-unique edges.
This brings build time down by an order of magnitude for an input that has
~10k cases in a switch statement.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33584
llvm-svn: 304721
The C functions added are LLVMGetNumContainedTypes and
LLVMGetSubtypes.
The OCaml function added is Llvm.subtypes.
Patch by Ekaterina Vaartis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33677
llvm-svn: 304709
This was rL304226, reverted in 304228 due to a clang assertion failure
on the build bots. That problem should have been addressed by clang
commit rL304470.
llvm-svn: 304488
Summary:
Clang wants to clone a function before it is done building the entire
compilation unit. As of now, there is no good way to do that, because
CloneFunction doesn't like dealing with temporary metadata. However,
as long as clang doesn't want to add any variables to this SP, it
should be fine to just prematurely finalize it. Add an API to allow this.
This is done in preparation of a clang commit to fix the assertion that
necessitated the revert of D33655.
Reviewers: aprantl, dblaikie
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33704
llvm-svn: 304467
Summary:
Fairly straightforward patch to fill in some of the holes in the
attributes API with respect to accessing parameter/argument attributes.
The patch aims to step further towards encapsulating the
idx+FirstArgIndex pattern to access these attributes to within the
AttributeList.
Patch by Daniel Neilson!
Reviewers: rnk, chandlerc, pete, javed.absar, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33355
llvm-svn: 304329
This reverts commit r304310.
It caused build failures in polly and mingw
due to undefined reference to
llvm::RTLIB::getMEMCPY_ELEMENT_ATOMIC.
llvm-svn: 304315
Summary:
Expanding the loop idiom test for memcpy to also recognize unordered atomic memcpy.
The only difference for recognizing
an unordered atomic memcpy and instead of a normal memcpy is
that the loads and/or stores involved are unordered atomic operations.
Background: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/112779.html
Patch by Daniel Neilson!
Reviewers: reames, anna, skatkov
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33243
llvm-svn: 304310
Craig Topper