Now that `Metadata` is typeless, reflect that in the assembly. These
are the matching assembly changes for the metadata/value split in
r223802.
- Only use the `metadata` type when referencing metadata from a call
intrinsic -- i.e., only when it's used as a `Value`.
- Stop pretending that `ValueAsMetadata` is wrapped in an `MDNode`
when referencing it from call intrinsics.
So, assembly like this:
define @foo(i32 %v) {
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{i32 %v}, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{i32 7}, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !1, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !3, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{metadata !3}, metadata !0)
ret void, !bar !2
}
!0 = metadata !{metadata !2}
!1 = metadata !{i32* @global}
!2 = metadata !{metadata !3}
!3 = metadata !{}
turns into this:
define @foo(i32 %v) {
call void @llvm.foo(metadata i32 %v, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata i32 7, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata i32* @global, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !3, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{!3}, metadata !0)
ret void, !bar !2
}
!0 = !{!2}
!1 = !{i32* @global}
!2 = !{!3}
!3 = !{}
I wrote an upgrade script that handled almost all of the tests in llvm
and many of the tests in cfe (even handling many `CHECK` lines). I've
attached it (or will attach it in a moment if you're speedy) to PR21532
to help everyone update their out-of-tree testcases.
This is part of PR21532.
llvm-svn: 224257
This reverts commit r218918, effectively reapplying r218914 after fixing
an Ocaml bindings test and an Asan crash. The root cause of the latter
was a tightened-up check in `DILexicalBlock::Verify()`, so I'll file a
PR to investigate who requires the loose check (and why).
Original commit message follows.
--
This patch addresses the first stage of PR17891 by folding constant
arguments together into a single MDString. Integers are stringified and
a `\0` character is used as a separator.
Part of PR17891.
Note: I've attached my testcases upgrade scripts to the PR. If I've
just broken your out-of-tree testcases, they might help.
llvm-svn: 219010
This patch addresses the first stage of PR17891 by folding constant
arguments together into a single MDString. Integers are stringified and
a `\0` character is used as a separator.
Part of PR17891.
Note: I've attached my testcases upgrade scripts to the PR. If I've
just broken your out-of-tree testcases, they might help.
llvm-svn: 218914
argument of the llvm.dbg.declare/llvm.dbg.value intrinsics.
Previously, DIVariable was a variable-length field that has an optional
reference to a Metadata array consisting of a variable number of
complex address expressions. In the case of OpPiece expressions this is
wasting a lot of storage in IR, because when an aggregate type is, e.g.,
SROA'd into all of its n individual members, the IR will contain n copies
of the DIVariable, all alike, only differing in the complex address
reference at the end.
By making the complex address into an extra argument of the
dbg.value/dbg.declare intrinsics, all of the pieces can reference the
same variable and the complex address expressions can be uniqued across
the CU, too.
Down the road, this will allow us to move other flags, such as
"indirection" out of the DIVariable, too.
The new intrinsics look like this:
declare void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata %storage, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
declare void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata %storage, i64 %offset, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
This patch adds a new LLVM-local tag to DIExpressions, so we can detect
and pretty-print DIExpression metadata nodes.
What this patch doesn't do:
This patch does not touch the "Indirect" field in DIVariable; but moving
that into the expression would be a natural next step.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4919
rdar://problem/17994491
Thanks to dblaikie and dexonsmith for reviewing this patch!
Note: I accidentally committed a bogus older version of this patch previously.
llvm-svn: 218787
argument of the llvm.dbg.declare/llvm.dbg.value intrinsics.
Previously, DIVariable was a variable-length field that has an optional
reference to a Metadata array consisting of a variable number of
complex address expressions. In the case of OpPiece expressions this is
wasting a lot of storage in IR, because when an aggregate type is, e.g.,
SROA'd into all of its n individual members, the IR will contain n copies
of the DIVariable, all alike, only differing in the complex address
reference at the end.
By making the complex address into an extra argument of the
dbg.value/dbg.declare intrinsics, all of the pieces can reference the
same variable and the complex address expressions can be uniqued across
the CU, too.
Down the road, this will allow us to move other flags, such as
"indirection" out of the DIVariable, too.
The new intrinsics look like this:
declare void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata %storage, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
declare void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata %storage, i64 %offset, metadata %var, metadata %expr)
This patch adds a new LLVM-local tag to DIExpressions, so we can detect
and pretty-print DIExpression metadata nodes.
What this patch doesn't do:
This patch does not touch the "Indirect" field in DIVariable; but moving
that into the expression would be a natural next step.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4919
rdar://problem/17994491
Thanks to dblaikie and dexonsmith for reviewing this patch!
llvm-svn: 218778
Reverted by Eric Christopher (Thanks!) in r212203 after Bob Wilson
reported LTO issues. Duncan Exon Smith and Aditya Nandakumar helped
provide a reduced reproduction, though the failure wasn't too hard to
guess, and even easier with the example to confirm.
The assertion that the subprogram metadata associated with an
llvm::Function matches the scope data referenced by the DbgLocs on the
instructions in that function is not valid under LTO. In LTO, a C++
inline function might exist in multiple CUs and the subprogram metadata
nodes will refer to the same llvm::Function. In this case, depending on
the order of the CUs, the first intance of the subprogram metadata may
not be the one referenced by the instructions in that function and the
assertion will fail.
A test case (test/DebugInfo/cross-cu-linkonce-distinct.ll) is added, the
assertion removed and a comment added to explain this situation.
This was then reverted again in r213581 as it caused PR20367. The root
cause of this was the early exit in LiveDebugVariables meant that
spurious DBG_VALUE intrinsics that referenced dead variables were not
removed, causing an assertion/crash later on. The fix is to have
LiveDebugVariables strip all DBG_VALUE intrinsics in functions without
debug info as they're not needed anyway. Test case added to cover this
situation (that occurs when a debug-having function is inlined into a
nodebug function) in test/DebugInfo/X86/nodebug_with_debug_loc.ll
Original commit message:
If a function isn't actually in a CU's subprogram list in the debug info
metadata, ignore all the DebugLocs and don't try to build scopes, track
variables, etc.
While this is possibly a minor optimization, it's also a correctness fix
for an incoming patch that will add assertions to LexicalScopes and the
debug info verifier to ensure that all scope chains lead to debug info
for the current function.
Fix up a few test cases that had broken/incomplete debug info that could
violate this constraint.
Add a test case where this occurs by design (inlining a
debug-info-having function in an attribute nodebug function - we want
this to work because /if/ the nodebug function is then inlined into a
debug-info-having function, it should be fine (and will work fine - we
just stitch the scopes up as usual), but should the inlining not happen
we need to not assert fail either).
llvm-svn: 213952
Reverted by Eric Christopher (Thanks!) in r212203 after Bob Wilson
reported LTO issues. Duncan Exon Smith and Aditya Nandakumar helped
provide a reduced reproduction, though the failure wasn't too hard to
guess, and even easier with the example to confirm.
The assertion that the subprogram metadata associated with an
llvm::Function matches the scope data referenced by the DbgLocs on the
instructions in that function is not valid under LTO. In LTO, a C++
inline function might exist in multiple CUs and the subprogram metadata
nodes will refer to the same llvm::Function. In this case, depending on
the order of the CUs, the first intance of the subprogram metadata may
not be the one referenced by the instructions in that function and the
assertion will fail.
A test case (test/DebugInfo/cross-cu-linkonce-distinct.ll) is added, the
assertion removed and a comment added to explain this situation.
Original commit message:
If a function isn't actually in a CU's subprogram list in the debug info
metadata, ignore all the DebugLocs and don't try to build scopes, track
variables, etc.
While this is possibly a minor optimization, it's also a correctness fix
for an incoming patch that will add assertions to LexicalScopes and the
debug info verifier to ensure that all scope chains lead to debug info
for the current function.
Fix up a few test cases that had broken/incomplete debug info that could
violate this constraint.
Add a test case where this occurs by design (inlining a
debug-info-having function in an attribute nodebug function - we want
this to work because /if/ the nodebug function is then inlined into a
debug-info-having function, it should be fine (and will work fine - we
just stitch the scopes up as usual), but should the inlining not happen
we need to not assert fail either).
llvm-svn: 212649
If a function isn't actually in a CU's subprogram list in the debug info
metadata, ignore all the DebugLocs and don't try to build scopes, track
variables, etc.
While this is possibly a minor optimization, it's also a correctness fix
for an incoming patch that will add assertions to LexicalScopes and the
debug info verifier to ensure that all scope chains lead to debug info
for the current function.
Fix up a few test cases that had broken/incomplete debug info that could
violate this constraint.
Add a test case where this occurs by design (inlining a
debug-info-having function in an attribute nodebug function - we want
this to work because /if/ the nodebug function is then inlined into a
debug-info-having function, it should be fine (and will work fine - we
just stitch the scopes up as usual), but should the inlining not happen
we need to not assert fail either).
llvm-svn: 212203
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith