CallInst::updateProfWeight() creates branch_weights with i64 instead of i32.
To be more consistent everywhere and remove lots of casts from uint64_t
to uint32_t, use i64 for branch_weights.
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88609
It's currently ambiguous in IR whether the source language explicitly
did not want a stack a stack protector (in C, via function attribute
no_stack_protector) or doesn't care for any given function.
It's common for code that manipulates the stack via inline assembly or
that has to set up its own stack canary (such as the Linux kernel) would
like to avoid stack protectors in certain functions. In this case, we've
been bitten by numerous bugs where a callee with a stack protector is
inlined into an __attribute__((__no_stack_protector__)) caller, which
generally breaks the caller's assumptions about not having a stack
protector. LTO exacerbates the issue.
While developers can avoid this by putting all no_stack_protector
functions in one translation unit together and compiling those with
-fno-stack-protector, it's generally not very ergonomic or as
ergonomic as a function attribute, and still doesn't work for LTO. See also:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20200915172658.1432732-1-rkir@google.com/https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200918201436.2932360-30-samitolvanen@google.com/T/#u
Typically, when inlining a callee into a caller, the caller will be
upgraded in its level of stack protection (see adjustCallerSSPLevel()).
By adding an explicit attribute in the IR when the function attribute is
used in the source language, we can now identify such cases and prevent
inlining. Block inlining when the callee and caller differ in the case that one
contains `nossp` when the other has `ssp`, `sspstrong`, or `sspreq`.
Fixes pr/47479.
Reviewed By: void
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956
This reverts commit 26ee8aff2b.
It's necessary to insert bitcast the pointer operand of a lifetime
marker if it has an opaque pointer type.
rdar://70560161
This broke Chromium's PGO build, it seems because hot-cold-splitting got turned
on unintentionally. See comment on the code review for repro etc.
> This patch adds -f[no-]split-cold-code CC1 options to clang. This allows
> the splitting pass to be toggled on/off. The current method of passing
> `-mllvm -hot-cold-split=true` to clang isn't ideal as it may not compose
> correctly (say, with `-O0` or `-Oz`).
>
> To implement the -fsplit-cold-code option, an attribute is applied to
> functions to indicate that they may be considered for splitting. This
> removes some complexity from the old/new PM pipeline builders, and
> behaves as expected when LTO is enabled.
>
> Co-authored by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265
> Reviewed By: Aditya Kumar, Vedant Kumar
> Reviewers: Teresa Johnson, Aditya Kumar, Fedor Sergeev, Philip Pfaffe, Vedant Kumar
This reverts commit 273c299d5d.
This patch adds -f[no-]split-cold-code CC1 options to clang. This allows
the splitting pass to be toggled on/off. The current method of passing
`-mllvm -hot-cold-split=true` to clang isn't ideal as it may not compose
correctly (say, with `-O0` or `-Oz`).
To implement the -fsplit-cold-code option, an attribute is applied to
functions to indicate that they may be considered for splitting. This
removes some complexity from the old/new PM pipeline builders, and
behaves as expected when LTO is enabled.
Co-authored by: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd@compnerd.org>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265
Reviewed By: Aditya Kumar, Vedant Kumar
Reviewers: Teresa Johnson, Aditya Kumar, Fedor Sergeev, Philip Pfaffe, Vedant Kumar
Looks like this pass isn't really used and hasn't been worked on in a
loooong time.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89010
-loop-extract-single is just -loop-extract on one loop.
-loop-extract depended on -break-crit-edges and -loop-simplify in the
legacy PM, but the NPM doesn't allow specifying pass dependencies like
that, so manually add those passes to the RUN lines where necessary.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89016
We should only skip `lifetime` and `dbg` intrinsics when searching for users.
Other intrinsics are legit users that can't be ignored.
Without this fix, the testcase would result in an invalid IR. `memcpy`
will have a reference to the, now, external value (local to the
extracted loop function).
Fix PR42194
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78749
The LoopExtractor created new functions (by definition), which violates
the restrictions of a LoopPass.
The correct implementation of this pass should be as a ModulePass.
Includes reverting rL82990 implications on the LoopExtractor.
Fixes PR3082 and PR8929.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69069
During extraction, stale llvm.assume handles may be retained in the
original function. The setup is:
1) CodeExtractor unregisters assumptions in the blocks that are to be
extracted.
2) Extraction happens. There are now two functions: f1 and f1.extracted.
3) Leftover assumptions in f1 (/not/ removed as they were not in the set of
blocks to be extracted) now have affected-value llvm.assume handles in
f1.extracted.
When assumptions for a value used in f1 are looked up, ValueTracking can assert
as some of the handles are in the wrong function. To fix this, simply erase the
llvm.assume calls in the extracted function.
Alternatives include flushing the assumption cache in the original function, or
walking all values used in the original function to prune stale affected-value
handles. Both seem more expensive.
Testing: check-llvm, LNT run with -mllvm -hot-cold-split enabled
rdar://58460728
An alloca which can be sunk into the extraction region may have more
than one bitcast use. Move these uses along with the alloca to prevent
use-before-def.
Testing: check-llvm, stage2 build of clang
Fixes llvm.org/PR42451.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64463
llvm-svn: 365660
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
If a lifetime.end marker occurs along one path through the extraction
region, but not another, then it's still incorrect to lift the marker,
because there is some path through the extracted function which would
ordinarily not reach the marker. If the call to the extracted function
is in a loop, unrolling can cause inputs to the function to become
optimized out as undef after the first iteration.
To prevent incorrect stack slot merging in the calling function, it
should be sufficient to lift lifetime.start markers for region inputs.
I've tested this theory out by doing a stage2 check-all with randomized
splitting enabled.
This is a follow-up to r353973, and there's additional context for this
change in https://reviews.llvm.org/D57834.
rdar://47896986
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58253
llvm-svn: 354159
Summary: Assumption cache's self-updating mechanism does not correctly handle the case when blocks are extracted from the function by the CodeExtractor. As a result function's assumption cache may have stale references to the llvm.assume calls that were moved to the outlined function. This patch fixes this problem by removing extracted llvm.assume calls from the function’s assumption cache.
Reviewers: hfinkel, vsk, fhahn, davidxl, sanjoy
Reviewed By: hfinkel, vsk
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57215
llvm-svn: 353500
CodeExtractor permits extracting a region of blocks from a function even
when values defined within the region are used outside of it.
This is typically done by creating an alloca in the original function
and reloading the alloca after a call to the extracted function.
Wrap the reload in lifetime start/end markers to promote stack coloring.
Suggested by Sergei Kachkov!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56045
llvm-svn: 351621
Lifetime markers which reference inputs to the extraction region are not
safe to extract. Example ('rhs' will be extracted):
```
entry:
+------------+
| x = alloca |
| y = alloca |
+------------+
/ \
lhs: rhs:
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| lifetime_start(x) | | lifetime_start(x) |
| use(x) | | lifetime_start(y) |
| lifetime_end(x) | | use(x, y) |
| lifetime_start(y) | | lifetime_end(y) |
| use(y) | | lifetime_end(x) |
| lifetime_end(y) | +-------------------+
+-------------------+
```
Prior to extraction, the stack coloring pass sees that the slots for 'x'
and 'y' are in-use at the same time. After extraction, the coloring pass
infers that 'x' and 'y' are *not* in-use concurrently, because markers
from 'rhs' are no longer available to help decide otherwise.
This leads to a miscompile, because the stack slots actually are in-use
concurrently in the extracted function.
Fix this by moving lifetime start/end markers for memory regions defined
in the calling function around the call to the extracted function.
Fixes llvm.org/PR39671 (rdar://45939472).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55967
llvm-svn: 350420
InlineCost also treats them as free and the current implementation
can cause assertion failures if PHI nodes are moved outside the region
from entry BBs to the region.
It also updates the code to use the instructionsWithoutDebug iterator.
Reviewers: davidxl, davide, vsk, graham-yiu-huawei
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54748
llvm-svn: 347683
Summary:
The current default of appending "_"+entry block label to the new
extracted cold function breaks demangling. Change the deliminator from
"_" to "." to enable demangling. Because the header block label will
be empty for release compile code, use "extracted" after the "." when
the label is empty.
Additionally, add a mechanism for the client to pass in an alternate
suffix applied after the ".", and have the hot cold split pass use
"cold."+Count, where the Count is currently 1 but can be used to
uniquely number multiple cold functions split out from the same function
with D53588.
Reviewers: sebpop, hiraditya
Subscribers: llvm-commits, erik.pilkington
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53534
llvm-svn: 345178
Currently CodeExtractor tries to use the next node after an invoke to
place the store for the result of the invoke, if it is an out parameter
of the region. This fails, as the invoke terminates the current BB.
In that case, we can place the store in the 'normal destination' BB, as
the result will only be available in that case.
Reviewers: davidxl, davide, efriedma
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51037
llvm-svn: 340331
This is a CodeExtractor improvement which adds support for extracting blocks
which have exception handling constructs if that is legal to do. CodeExtractor
performs validation checks to ensure that extraction is legal when it finds
invoke instructions or EH pads (landingpad, catchswitch, or cleanuppad) in
blocks to be extracted.
I have also added an option to allow extraction of blocks with alloca
instructions, but no validation is done for allocas. CodeExtractor caller has
to validate it himself before allowing alloca instructions to be extracted.
By default allocas are still not allowed in extraction blocks.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45904
llvm-svn: 332151
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is
!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)
We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is
llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)
It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.
We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
llvm-svn: 331841
The callback used to create an ORE for the legacy PI pass caches the allocated
object in a unique_ptr in the runOnModule function, and returns a reference to
that object. Under certian circumstances we can end up holding onto that
reference after the OREs destruction. Rather then allowing the new and legacy
passes to create ORE object in diffrent ways, create the ORE at the point of
use.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43219
llvm-svn: 330473
Use isInlineViable to prevent inlining of functions with non-inlinable
constructs, in case cost analysis is skipped.
Reviewers: efriedma, sfertile, davide, davidxl
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42846
llvm-svn: 327207
When using the partial inliner, we might have attributes for forwarded
varargs, but the CodeExtractor does not create an empty argument
attribute set for regular arguments in that case, because it does not know
of the additional arguments. So in case we have attributes for VarArgs, we
also have to make sure we create (empty) attributes for all regular arguments.
This fixes PR36210.
llvm-svn: 324197
In addition to target-dependent attributes, we can also preserve a
white-listed subset of target independent function attributes. The white-list
excludes problematic attributes, most prominently:
* attributes related to memory accesses, as alloca instructions
could be moved in/out of the extracted block
* control-flow dependent attributes, like no_return or thunk, as the
relerelevant instructions might or might not get extracted.
Thanks @efriedma and @aemerson for providing a set of attributes that cannot be
propagated.
Reviewers: efriedma, davidxl, davide, silvas
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41334
llvm-svn: 321961
Summary:
If a partially inlined function has debug info, we have to add debug
locations to the call instruction calling the outlined function.
We use the debug location of the first instruction in the outlined
function, as the introduced call transfers control to this statement and
there is no other equivalent line in the source code.
We also use the same debug location for the branch instruction added
to jump from artificial entry block for the outlined function, which just
jumps to the first actual basic block of the outlined function.
Reviewers: davide, aprantl, rriddle, dblaikie, danielcdh, wmi
Reviewed By: aprantl, rriddle, danielcdh
Subscribers: eraman, JDevlieghere, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40413
llvm-svn: 320199
Summary:
This patch extends the partial inliner to support inlining parts of
vararg functions, if the vararg handling is done in the outlined part.
It adds a `ForwardVarArgsTo` argument to InlineFunction. If it is
non-null, all varargs passed to the inlined function will be added to
all calls to `ForwardVarArgsTo`.
The partial inliner takes care to only pass `ForwardVarArgsTo` if the
varargs handing is done in the outlined function. It checks that vastart
is not part of the function to be inlined.
`test/Transforms/CodeExtractor/PartialInlineNoInline.ll` (already part
of the repo) checks we do not do partial inlining if vastart is used in
a basic block that will be inlined.
Reviewers: davide, davidxl, grosser
Reviewed By: davide, davidxl, grosser
Subscribers: gyiu, grosser, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39607
llvm-svn: 318028
Summary:
InlineFunction can fail, for example when trying to inline vararg
fuctions. In those cases, we do not want to bump partial inlining
counters or set AnyInlined to true, because this could leave an unused
function hanging around.
Reviewers: davidxl, davide, gyiu
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits, eraman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39581
llvm-svn: 317314
Summary:
By replacing branches to CommonExitBlock, we remove the node from
CommonExitBlock's predecessors, invalidating the iterator. The problem
is exposed when the common exit block has multiple predecessors and
needs to sink lifetime info. The modification in the test case trigger
the issue.
Reviewers: davidxl, davide, wmi
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39112
llvm-svn: 317084
BlockAddress are only valid within their function context, which does not
interact well with CodeExtractor. Detect this case and prevent it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33839
llvm-svn: 306448
Implemented frequency based cost/saving analysis
and related options.
The pass is now in a state ready to be turne on
in the pipeline (in follow up).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D32783
llvm-svn: 302967
Nico Weber