Clang generates copy and dispose helper functions for each block literal
on the stack. Often these functions are equivalent for different blocks.
This commit makes changes to merge equivalent copy and dispose helper
functions and reduce code size.
To enable merging equivalent copy/dispose functions, the captured object
infomation is encoded into the helper function name. This allows IRGen
to check whether an equivalent helper function has already been emitted
and reuse the function instead of generating a new helper function
whenever a block is defined. In addition, the helper functions are
marked as linkonce_odr to enable merging helper functions that have the
same name across translation units and marked as unnamed_addr to enable
the linker's deduplication pass to merge functions that have different
names but the same content.
rdar://problem/42640608
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50152
llvm-svn: 339438
There is a synchronization point between the reference count of a block dropping to zero and it's destruction, which TSan does not observe. Do not report errors in the compiler-emitted block destroy method and everything called from it.
This is similar to https://reviews.llvm.org/D25857
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28387
llvm-svn: 291868
-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
This introduces a function annotation that disables TSan checking for the
function at run time. The benefit over attribute((no_sanitize("thread")))
is that the accesses within the callees will also be suppressed.
The motivation for this attribute is a guarantee given by the objective C
language that the calls to the reference count decrement and object
deallocation will be synchronized. To model this properly, we would need to
intercept all ref count decrement calls (which are very common in ObjC due
to use of ARC) and also every single message send. Instead, we propose to
just ignore all accesses made from within dealloc at run time. The main
downside is that this still does not introduce any synchronization, which
means we might still report false positives if the code that relies on this
synchronization is not executed from within dealloc. However, we have not
seen this in practice so far and think these cases will be very rare.
(This problem is similar in nature to https://reviews.llvm.org/D21609;
unfortunately, the same solution does not apply here.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25857
llvm-svn: 286672
Akira Hatanaka