Since r199356, we've printed a warning when dropping debug info.
r225562 started crashing on that, since it registered a diagnostic
handler that only expected errors. This fixes the handler to expect
other severities. As a side effect, it now prints "error: " at the
start of error messages, similar to `llvm-as`.
There was a testcase for r199356, but it only really checked the
assembler. Move `test/Bitcode/drop-debug-info.ll` to `test/Assembler`,
and introduce `test/Bitcode/drop-debug-info.3.5.ll` (and companion
`.bc`) to test the bitcode reader.
Note: tools/gold/gold-plugin.cpp has an equivalent bug, but I'm not sure
what the best fix is there. I'll file a PR.
llvm-svn: 230416
Like r230414, add bitcode support including backwards compatibility, for
an explicit type parameter to GEP.
At the suggestion of Duncan I tried coalescing the two older bitcodes into a
single new bitcode, though I did hit a wrinkle: I couldn't figure out how to
create an explicit abbreviation for a record with a variable number of
arguments (the indicies to the gep). This means the discriminator between
inbounds and non-inbounds gep is a full variable-length field I believe? Is my
understanding correct? Is there a way to create such an abbreviation? Should I
just use two bitcodes as before?
Reviewers: dexonsmith
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7736
llvm-svn: 230415
Summary:
I've taken my best guess at this, but I've cargo culted in places & so
explanations/corrections would be great.
This seems to pass all the tests (check-all, covering clang and llvm) so I
believe that pretty well exercises both the backwards compatibility and common
(same version) compatibility given the number of checked in bitcode files we
already have. Is that a reasonable approach to testing here? Would some more
explicit tests be desired?
1) is this the right way to do back-compat in this case (looking at the number
of entries in the bitcode record to disambiguate between the old schema and
the new?)
2) I don't quite understand the logarithm logic to choose the encoding type of
the type parameter in the abbreviation description, but I found another
instruction doing the same thing & it seems to work. Is that the right
approach?
Reviewers: dexonsmith
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7655
llvm-svn: 230414
This adds support for the QPX vector instruction set, which is used by the
enhanced A2 cores on the IBM BG/Q supercomputers. QPX vectors are 256 bytes
wide, holding 4 double-precision floating-point values. Boolean values, modeled
here as <4 x i1> are actually also represented as floating-point values
(essentially { -1, 1 } for { false, true }). QPX shares many features with
Altivec and VSX, but is distinct from both of them. One major difference is
that, instead of adding completely-separate vector registers, QPX vector
registers are extensions of the scalar floating-point registers (lane 0 is the
corresponding scalar floating-point value). The operations supported on QPX
vectors mirrors that supported on the scalar floating-point values (with some
additional ones for permutations and logical/comparison operations).
I've been maintaining this support out-of-tree, as part of the bgclang project,
for several years. This is not the entire bgclang patch set, but is most of the
subset that can be cleanly integrated into LLVM proper at this time. Adding
this to the LLVM backend is part of my efforts to rebase bgclang to the current
LLVM trunk, but is independently useful (especially for codes that use LLVM as
a JIT in library form).
The assembler/disassembler test coverage is complete. The CodeGen test coverage
is not, but I've included some tests, and more will be added as follow-up work.
llvm-svn: 230413
This patch unifies the comdat and non-comdat code paths. By doing this
it add missing features to the comdat side and removes the fixed
section assumptions from the non-comdat side.
In ELF there is no one true section for "4 byte mergeable" constants.
We are better off computing the required properties of the section
and asking the context for it.
llvm-svn: 230411
Fix this by returning the fact that the "symbols" word is complete if there is nothing else to complete after the "symbols" word.
<rdar://problem/19164599>
llvm-svn: 230408
"After recent changes, some code has become redundant. This revision tries to remove
the un-used code and tidy up the rest.
Following 4 files have been removed. I have updated CMake files and checked that it builds
fine on Linux and Windows. Can somebody update the xcode related file accordingly?
tools/lldb-mi/MICmnStreamStdinLinux.cpp
tools/lldb-mi/MICmnStreamStdinLinux.h
tools/lldb-mi/MICmnStreamStdinWindows.cpp
tools/lldb-mi/MICmnStreamStdinWindows.h"
llvm-svn: 230401
When you use generator expressions in a library sources list,
and then later access the SOURCES property, the OLD behavior
(CMake 3.0 and earlier) would not include these expressions in
the SOURCES property. The NEW behavior (starting in CMake 3.1)
is that they do include the generator expressions in the SOURCES
property.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7870
Reviewed By: Chris Bieneman
llvm-svn: 230396
The builder is based on a layout algorithm that tries to keep members of
small bit sets together. The new layout compresses Chromium's bit sets to
around 15% of their original size.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7796
llvm-svn: 230394
There is no need to open-code the alignment calculation, we have a
handy RoundUpToAlignment function which "Does The Right Thing (TM)".
llvm-svn: 230392
This resubmits r230380. The primary cause of the failure was
actually just a warning, which we can disable at the CMake level
in a followup patch on the LLVM side. The other thing which was
actually an error on the bot should be able to be fixed with
a clean.
llvm-svn: 230389
Most of the checks in these two tests were actually testing the
behaviour of the instrprof LLVM pass. Now that we're testing that
specifically in LLVM's test suite, it's better if we only test the
frontend's behaviour here.
llvm-svn: 230387
This test checks that the symbols instrprof creates have appropriate
linkage. The tests already exist in clang in a slightly different form
from before we sunk profile generation into an LLVM pass, but that's
an awkward place for them now. I'll remove/simplify the clang versions
shortly.
llvm-svn: 230383
An OBJECT library is a special type of CMake library that produces
no archive, has no link interface, and no link inputs. It is like
a regular archive, just without the physical output. To link
against an OBJECT library, you reference it in the *source* file
list of a library using the special syntax $<TARGET_OBJECTS:lldbAPI>.
This will cause every object file to be passed to the linker
independently, as opposed to a single archive being passed to the
linker.
This is *extremely* important on Windows. lldbAPI exports all of the
SB classes using __declspec(dllexport). Unfortunately for technical
reasons it is not possible (well, extremely difficult) to get the
linker to propagate a __declspec(dllexport) attribute from a symbol
in an object file in an archive to a DLL that links against that
archive. The solution to this is for the DLL to link the object files
directly. So lldbAPI must be an OBJECT library.
This fixes an issue that has been present since the duplicated
lldbAPI file lists were removed, which would cause linker failures.
As a side effect, this also makes LLDB_DISABLE_PYTHON=1 work again
on Windows, which was previously totally broken.
llvm-svn: 230380
This is generating problems when you have built both debug and
release python. For now I just want to get CMake to work, I
will work on a more robust fix later. In the meantime you may
need to copy python27(_d).dll manually to ninja\bin after
building.
llvm-svn: 230379
TODO: The iwmmx register save & restore functions still need the same treatment.
I didn't do that in this patch because the integrated assembler has a bug
where it refuses to build them on -march=armv6-m, even with
.march armv5t
.arm
in front of those functions.
This should fix PR22384.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7258
llvm-svn: 230360
In this change:
- Put the getting started section first
- Create a dedicated section to document the built in collector strategies
- Move discuss of ShadowStack into new section
- Add placeholders for erlang, ocaml, and statepoint-example collectors
There will be many more changes following. I plan on full integrating the documentation for gc.statepoint and gc.root. I want to make it much clearer on how to get started and what users should expect in terms of effort.
llvm-svn: 230359
Michael J. Spencer