This patch aims to provide correct dwarf unwind information in function
epilogue for X86.
It consists of two parts. The first part inserts CFI instructions that set
appropriate cfa offset and cfa register in emitEpilogue() in
X86FrameLowering. This part is X86 specific.
The second part is platform independent and ensures that:
* CFI instructions do not affect code generation (they are not counted as
instructions when tail duplicating or tail merging)
* Unwind information remains correct when a function is modified by
different passes. This is done in a late pass by analyzing information
about cfa offset and cfa register in BBs and inserting additional CFI
directives where necessary.
Added CFIInstrInserter pass:
* analyzes each basic block to determine cfa offset and register are valid
at its entry and exit
* verifies that outgoing cfa offset and register of predecessor blocks match
incoming values of their successors
* inserts additional CFI directives at basic block beginning to correct the
rule for calculating CFA
Having CFI instructions in function epilogue can cause incorrect CFA
calculation rule for some basic blocks. This can happen if, due to basic
block reordering, or the existence of multiple epilogue blocks, some of the
blocks have wrong cfa offset and register values set by the epilogue block
above them.
CFIInstrInserter is currently run only on X86, but can be used by any target
that implements support for adding CFI instructions in epilogue.
Patch by Violeta Vukobrat.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42848
llvm-svn: 330706
across basic blocks in the limited cases where it is very straight
forward to do so.
This will also be useful for other places where we do some limited
EFLAGS propagation across CFG edges and need to handle copy rewrites
afterward. I think this is rapidly approaching the maximum we can and
should be doing here. Everything else begins to require either heroic
analysis to prove how to do PHI insertion manually, or somehow managing
arbitrary PHI-ing of EFLAGS with general PHI insertion. Neither of these
seem at all promising so if those cases come up, we'll almost certainly
need to rewrite the parts of LLVM that produce those patterns.
We do now require dominator trees in order to reliably diagnose patterns
that would require PHI nodes. This is a bit unfortunate but it seems
better than the completely mysterious crash we would get otherwise.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45673
llvm-svn: 330264
The key idea is to lower COPY nodes populating EFLAGS by scanning the
uses of EFLAGS and introducing dedicated code to preserve the necessary
state in a GPR. In the vast majority of cases, these uses are cmovCC and
jCC instructions. For such cases, we can very easily save and restore
the necessary information by simply inserting a setCC into a GPR where
the original flags are live, and then testing that GPR directly to feed
the cmov or conditional branch.
However, things are a bit more tricky if arithmetic is using the flags.
This patch handles the vast majority of cases that seem to come up in
practice: adc, adcx, adox, rcl, and rcr; all without taking advantage of
partially preserved EFLAGS as LLVM doesn't currently model that at all.
There are a large number of operations that techinaclly observe EFLAGS
currently but shouldn't in this case -- they typically are using DF.
Currently, they will not be handled by this approach. However, I have
never seen this issue come up in practice. It is already pretty rare to
have these patterns come up in practical code with LLVM. I had to resort
to writing MIR tests to cover most of the logic in this pass already.
I suspect even with its current amount of coverage of arithmetic users
of EFLAGS it will be a significant improvement over the current use of
pushf/popf. It will also produce substantially faster code in most of
the common patterns.
This patch also removes all of the old lowering for EFLAGS copies, and
the hack that forced us to use a frame pointer when EFLAGS copies were
found anywhere in a function so that the dynamic stack adjustment wasn't
a problem. None of this is needed as we now lower all of these copies
directly in MI and without require stack adjustments.
Lots of thanks to Reid who came up with several aspects of this
approach, and Craig who helped me work out a couple of things tripping
me up while working on this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45146
llvm-svn: 329657
Summary:
Currently MachineLoopInfo is used in only two places:
1) for computing IsBasicBlockInsideInnermostLoop field of MCCodePaddingContext, and it is never used.
2) in emitBasicBlockLoopComments, which is called only if `isVerbose()` is true.
Despite that, we currently have a dependency on MachineLoopInfo, which makes
pass manager to compute it and MachineDominator Tree. This patch removes the
use (1) and makes the use (2) lazy, thus avoiding some redundant
recomputations.
Reviewers: opaparo, gadi.haber, rafael, craig.topper, zvi
Subscribers: rengolin, javed.absar, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44812
llvm-svn: 329542
Summary:
The ShadowCallStack pass instruments functions marked with the
shadowcallstack attribute. The instrumented prolog saves the return
address to [gs:offset] where offset is stored and updated in [gs:0].
The instrumented epilog loads/updates the return address from [gs:0]
and checks that it matches the return address on the stack before
returning.
Reviewers: pcc, vitalybuka
Reviewed By: pcc
Subscribers: cryptoad, eugenis, craig.topper, mgorny, llvm-commits, kcc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44802
llvm-svn: 329139
If a load follows a store and reloads data that the store has written to memory, Intel microarchitectures can in many cases forward the data directly from the store to the load, This "store forwarding" saves cycles by enabling the load to directly obtain the data instead of accessing the data from cache or memory.
A "store forward block" occurs in cases that a store cannot be forwarded to the load. The most typical case of store forward block on Intel Core microarchiticutre that a small store cannot be forwarded to a large load.
The estimated penalty for a store forward block is ~13 cycles.
This pass tries to recognize and handle cases where "store forward block" is created by the compiler when lowering memcpy calls to a sequence
of a load and a store.
The pass currently only handles cases where memcpy is lowered to XMM/YMM registers, it tries to break the memcpy into smaller copies.
breaking the memcpy should be possible since there is no atomicity guarantee for loads and stores to XMM/YMM.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41330
Change-Id: Ib48836ccdf6005989f7d4466fa2035b7b04415d9
llvm-svn: 328973
Summary: Mark CFG is preserved since this pass do not make any change in CFG.
Reviewers: sebpop, mzolotukhin, mcrosier
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44845
llvm-svn: 328727
Petar Jovanovic