The implementation is fairly obvious. This is preparation for using
some blobs in bitcode.
For clarity (and perhaps future-proofing?), I moved the call to
JumpToBit in BitstreamCursor::readRecord ahead of calling
MemoryObject::getPointer, since JumpToBit can theoretically (a) read
bytes, which (b) invalidates the blob pointer.
This isn't strictly necessary the two memory objects we have:
- The return of RawMemoryObject::getPointer is valid until the memory
object is destroyed.
- StreamingMemoryObject::getPointer is valid until the next chunk is
read from the stream. Since the JumpToBit call is only going ahead
to a word boundary, we'll never load another chunk.
However, reordering makes it clear by inspection that the blob returned
by BitstreamCursor::readRecord will be valid.
I added some tests for StreamingMemoryObject::getPointer and
BitstreamCursor::readRecord.
llvm-svn: 264549
Optimize output of MDStrings in bitcode. This emits them in big blocks
(currently 1024) in a pair of records:
- BULK_STRING_SIZES: the sizes of the strings in the block, and
- BULK_STRING_DATA: a single blob, which is the concatenation of all
the strings.
Inspired by Mehdi's similar patch, http://reviews.llvm.org/D18342, this
should (a) slightly reduce bitcode size, since there is less record
overhead, and (b) greatly improve reading speed, since blobs are super
cheap to deserialize.
I needed to add support for blobs to streaming input to get the test
suite passing.
- StreamingMemoryObject::getPointer reads ahead and returns the
address of the blob.
- To avoid a possible reallocation of StreamingMemoryObject::Bytes,
BitstreamCursor::readRecord needs to move the call to JumpToEnd
forward so that getPointer is the last bitstream operation.
llvm-svn: 264409
Summary:
Also tagged a FIXME comment, and added information about why it breaks.
Bug found using AFL fuzz.
Reviewers: rafael, craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9729
llvm-svn: 237709
Summary:
Added isLoadableOrStorableType to PointerType.
We were doing some checks in some places, occasionally assert()ing instead
of telling the caller. With this patch, I'm putting all type checking in
the same place for load/store type instructions, and verifying the same
thing every time.
I also added a check for load/store of a function type.
Applied extracted check to Load, Store, and Cmpxcg.
I don't have exhaustive tests for all of these, but all Error() calls in
TypeCheckLoadStoreInst are being tested (in invalid.test).
Reviewers: dblaikie, rafael
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9785
llvm-svn: 237619
Summary:
We don't seem to need to assert here, since this function's callers expect
to get a nullptr on error. This way we don't assert on user input.
Bug found with AFL fuzz.
Reviewers: rafael
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9308
llvm-svn: 236027
Summary:
Make sure the abbrev operands are valid and that we can read/skip them
afterwards.
Bug found with AFL fuzz.
Reviewers: rafael
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9030
llvm-svn: 235595
Use an extra bit in the CCInfo to flag the newer version of the
instructiont hat includes the type explicitly.
Tested the newer error cases I added, but didn't add tests for the finer
granularity improvements to existing error paths.
llvm-svn: 235160
Summary:
Without this check the following case failed:
Skip a SubBlock which is not a MODULE_BLOCK_ID nor a BLOCKINFO_BLOCK_ID
Got to end of file
TheModule would still be == nullptr, and we would subsequentially fail
when materializing the Module (assert at the start of
BitcodeReader::MaterializeModule).
Bug found with AFL.
Reviewers: dexonsmith, rafael
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9014
llvm-svn: 234887
(turns out I had regressed this when sinking handling of this type down
into GetElementPtrInst::Create - since that asserted before the error
handling was performed)
llvm-svn: 232420
While fuzzing LLVM bitcode files, I discovered that (1) the bitcode reader doesn't check that alignments are no larger than 2**29; (2) downstream code doesn't check the range; and (3) for values out of range, corresponding large memory requests (based on alignment size) will fail. This code fixes the bitcode reader to check for valid alignments, fixing this problem.
This CL fixes alignment value on global variables, functions, and instructions: alloca, load, load atomic, store, store atomic.
Patch by Karl Schimpf (kschimpf@google.com).
llvm-svn: 230180
Summary:
When creating {insert,extract}value instructions from a BitcodeReader, we
weren't verifying the fields were valid.
Bugs found with afl-fuzz
Reviewers: rafael
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7325
llvm-svn: 229345
Peter Collingbourne