objc_release calls
This fixes a bug where the presence of debug instructions would cause
ARC optimizer to change the order of retain and release calls.
rdar://problem/55319419
llvm-svn: 372352
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
A catchswitch must be the only non-phi instruction in its basic block;
attempting to move a retain or release into a catchswitch basic block
will result in invalid IR. Explicitly mark a CFG hazard in this case to
prevent the code motion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46482
llvm-svn: 332430
The DEBUG() macro is very generic so it might clash with other projects.
The renaming was done as follows:
- git grep -l 'DEBUG' | xargs sed -i 's/\bDEBUG\s\?(/LLVM_DEBUG(/g'
- git diff -U0 master | ../clang/tools/clang-format/clang-format-diff.py -i -p1 -style LLVM
- Manual change to APInt
- Manually chage DOCS as regex doesn't match it.
In the transition period the DEBUG() macro is still present and aliased
to the LLVM_DEBUG() one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43624
llvm-svn: 332240
The `BasicBlock::getFirstInsertionPt` call may return `std::end` for the
BB. Dereferencing the end iterator results in an assertion failure
"(!NodePtr->isKnownSentinel()), function operator*". Ensure that the
returned iterator is valid before dereferencing it. If the end is
returned, move one position backward to get a valid insertion point.
llvm-svn: 316401
retainAutoreleasedReturnValue that retains the returned value.
This commit fixes a bug in ARC optimizer where it moves a release
between a call and a retainAutoreleasedReturnValue, causing the returned
object to be released before the retainAutoreleasedReturnValue can
retain it.
This commit accomplishes that by doing a lookahead and checking whether
the call prevents the release from moving upwards. In the long term, we
should treat the region between the retainAutoreleasedReturnValue and
the call as a critical section and disallow moving anything there
(possibly using operand bundles).
rdar://problem/20449878
llvm-svn: 301724
We need to do this to prevent a miscompile which sinks an objc_retain
past an objc_release that releases the object objc_retain retains. This
happens because the top-down and bottom-up traversals each determines
the insert point for retain or release individually without knowing
where the other instruction is moved.
For example, when the following IR is fed to the ARC optimizer, the
top-down traversal decides to insert objc_retain right before
objc_release and the bottom-up traversal decides to insert objc_release
right after clang.arc.use.
(IR before ARC optimizer)
%11 = call i8* @objc_retain(i8* %10)
call void (...) @clang.arc.use(%0* %5)
call void @llvm.dbg.value(...)
call void @objc_release(i8* %6)
This reverses the order of objc_release and objc_retain, which causes
the object to be destructed prematurely.
(IR after ARC optimizer)
call void (...) @clang.arc.use(%0* %5)
call void @objc_release(i8* %6)
call void @llvm.dbg.value(...)
%11 = call i8* @objc_retain(i8* %10)
rdar://problem/30530580
llvm-svn: 301289
The problem here is the infamous one direction known safe. I was
hesitant to turn it off before b/c of the potential for regressions
without an actual bug from users hitting the problem. This is that bug ;
).
The main performance impact of having known safe in both directions is
that often times it is very difficult to find two releases without a use
in-between them since we are so conservative with determining potential
uses. The one direction known safe gets around that problem by taking
advantage of many situations where we have two retains in a row,
allowing us to avoid that problem. That being said, the one direction
known safe is unsafe. Consider the following situation:
retain(x)
retain(x)
call(x)
call(x)
release(x)
Then we know the following about the reference count of x:
// rc(x) == N (for some N).
retain(x)
// rc(x) == N+1
retain(x)
// rc(x) == N+2
call A(x)
call B(x)
// rc(x) >= 1 (since we can not release a deallocated pointer).
release(x)
// rc(x) >= 0
That is all the information that we can know statically. That means that
we know that A(x), B(x) together can release (x) at most N+1 times. Lets
say that we remove the inner retain, release pair.
// rc(x) == N (for some N).
retain(x)
// rc(x) == N+1
call A(x)
call B(x)
// rc(x) >= 1
release(x)
// rc(x) >= 0
We knew before that A(x), B(x) could release x up to N+1 times meaning
that rc(x) may be zero at the release(x). That is not safe. On the other
hand, consider the following situation where we have a must use of
release(x) that x must be kept alive for after the release(x)**. Then we
know that:
// rc(x) == N (for some N).
retain(x)
// rc(x) == N+1
retain(x)
// rc(x) == N+2
call A(x)
call B(x)
// rc(x) >= 2 (since we know that we are going to release x and that that release can not be the last use of x).
release(x)
// rc(x) >= 1 (since we can not deallocate the pointer since we have a must use after x).
…
// rc(x) >= 1
use(x)
Thus we know that statically the calls to A(x), B(x) can together only
release rc(x) N times. Thus if we remove the inner retain, release pair:
// rc(x) == N (for some N).
retain(x)
// rc(x) == N+1
call A(x)
call B(x)
// rc(x) >= 1
…
// rc(x) >= 1
use(x)
We are still safe unless in the final … there are unbalanced retains,
releases which would have caused the program to blow up anyways even
before optimization occurred. The simplest form of must use is an
additional release that has not been paired up with any retain (if we
had paired the release with a retain and removed it we would not have
the additional use). This fits nicely into the ARC framework since
basically what you do is say that given any nested releases regardless
of what is in between, the inner release is known safe. This enables us to get
back the lost performance.
<rdar://problem/19023795>
llvm-svn: 232351
These refactored computations check whether or not we are at a stage
of the sequence where we can perform a match. This patch moves the
computation out of the main dataflow and into
{BottomUp,TopDown}PtrState.
llvm-svn: 231439
This initialization occurs when we see a new retain or release. Before
we performed the actual initialization inline in the dataflow. That is
just messy.
llvm-svn: 231438
Akira Hatanaka