From C11 and C++11 onwards, a forward-progress requirement has been
introduced for both languages. In the case of C, loops with non-constant
conditionals that do not have any observable side-effects (as defined by
6.8.5p6) can be assumed by the implementation to terminate, and in the
case of C++, this assumption extends to all functions. The clang
frontend will emit the `mustprogress` function attribute for C++
functions (D86233, D85393, D86841) and emit the loop metadata
`llvm.loop.mustprogress` for every loop in C11 or later that has a
non-constant conditional.
This patch modifies LoopDeletion so that only loops with
the `llvm.loop.mustprogress` metadata or loops contained in functions
that are required to make progress (`mustprogress` or `willreturn`) are
checked for observable side-effects. If these loops do not have an
observable side-effect, then we delete them.
Loops without observable side-effects that do not satisfy the above
conditions will not be deleted.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86844
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
The actual type of the first argument of the @dbg intrinsic
doesn't really matter as we're setting it to `undef`, but the
bitcode reader is picky about `void` types.
llvm-svn: 349069
When loops are deleted, we don't keep track of variables modified inside
the loops, so the DI will contain the wrong value for these.
e.g.
int b() {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 2; i++)
;
patatino();
return a;
-> 6 patatino();
7 return a;
8 }
9 int main() { b(); }
(lldb) frame var i
(int) i = 0
We mark instead these values as unavailable inserting a
@llvm.dbg.value(undef to make sure we don't end up printing an incorrect
value in the debugger. We could consider doing something fancier,
for, e.g. constants, in the future.
PR39868.
rdar://problem/46418795)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55299
llvm-svn: 348988
Atmn Patel