The verifier computed an illegal type with negative dimension size when collapsing partially static memrefs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114702
See discussion in D51650, this change was a little aggressive in an
error while doing a 'while we were here', so this removes that error
condition, as it is apparently useful.
This reverts commit bb4934601d.
{D110833} regressed behavior of spaces before parentheses for operators, this revision reverts that so that operators are handled as they were before.
I think in hindsight it was a mistake to try and consume operator behaviour in with the function behaviour, I think Operators can be considered a special style. Its seems the code is getting confused as to if this is a function declaration or definition.
I think latterly we can consider adding an operator parentheses specific custom option but this should have been explicitly called out as it can impact projects.
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114696
I tried to exercise the existing combine patterns in performConcatVectorsCombine
for scalable vectors and at the moment it doesn't seem possible. Parts of
the code currently assume we're dealing with fixed-width vectors with calls
to getVectorNumElements(), therefore I've decided to simply bail out early
for scalable vectors.
Added a test here to show that we don't crash when attempting to combine
truncate + concat:
CodeGen/AArch64/concat_vector-truncate-combine.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114600
We don't properly handle lookup through using directives when there is
a linkage spec in the common chain. This is because `CppLookupName` and
`CppNamespaceLookup` end up skipping `LinkageSpec`'s (correctly, as they
are not lookup scopes), but the `UnqualUsingDirectiveSet` does not.
I discovered that when we are calculating the `CommonAncestor` for a
using-directive, we were coming up with the `LinkageSpec`, instead of
the `LinkageSpec`'s parent. Then, when we use
`UnqualUsingDirectiveSet::getNamespacesFor` a scope, we don't end up
finding any that were in the `LinkageSpec` (again, since `CppLookupName`
skips linkage specs), so those don't end up participating in the lookup.
The function `UnqualUsingDirectiveSet::addUsingDirective` calculates
this common ancestor via a loop through the the `DeclSpec::Encloses`
function.
Changing this Encloses function to believe that a `LinkageSpec`
`Encloses` nothing ends up fixing the problem without breaking any other tests,
so I opted to do that. A less aggressive patch could perhaps change only
the `addUsingDirective`, but my examination of all uses of `Encloses`
showed that it seems to be used exclusively in lookup, which makes me think
this is correct everywhere.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113709
This solves a problem with non-deterministic output from opt due
to not performing dominator tree updates in a deterministic order.
The problem that was analysed indicated that JumpThreading was using
the DomTreeUpdater via llvm::MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred. When
preparing the list of updates to send to DomTreeUpdater::applyUpdates
we iterated over a SmallPtrSet, which didn't give a well-defined
order of updates to perform.
The added domtree-updates.ll test case is an example that would
result in non-deterministic printouts of the domtree. Semantically
those domtree:s are equivalent, but it show the fact that when we
use the domtree iterator the order in which nodes are visited depend
on the order in which dominator tree updates are performed.
Since some passes (at least EarlyCSE) are iterating over nodes in the
dominator tree in a similar fashion as the domtree printer, then the
order in which transforms are applied by such passes, transitively,
also depend on the order in which dominator tree updates are
performed. And taking EarlyCSE as an example the end result could be
different depending on in which order the transforms are applied.
Reviewed By: nikic, kuhar
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110292
This allows the generic DAG combine to fold fp_extend/fp_trunc into
loads/stores which we can then lower into a integer extending
load/truncating store plus an FP_EXTEND/FP_ROUND.
The nuance here is that fixed-type FP_EXTEND/FP_ROUND require unpacked
types hence lowering them introduces an unpack/zip. By allowing these
nodes to be combined with loads/store we make it much easier to have
this unpack/zip combined into the load/store by our custom lowering.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114580
... to actually ask about i1-elt-wide mask, since that is what will probably be used on AVX512.
This unblocks D111460.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114316
Add pass to perform store/load forwarding and potentially removing dead
stores.
This patch is part of the upstreaming effort from fir-dev branch.
Reviewed By: kiranchandramohan, schweitz, mehdi_amini, awarzynski
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111288
I just read this part of the code, and I found the nested ifs less
readable.
Reviewed By: martong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114441
This patch adds the builder that generate assignment runtime API calls.
This patch is part of the upstreaming effort from fir-dev branch.
Reviewed By: rovka, awarzynski
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114475
Co-authored-by: Jean Perier <jperier@nvidia.com>
This patch adds the builder to generate transformational
intrinsic runtime API calls.
This patch is part of the upstreaming effort from fir-dev branch.
Reviewed By: rovka
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114470
Co-authored-by: Jean Perier <jperier@nvidia.com>
Co-authored-by: mleair <leairmark@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Kiran Chandramohan <kiran.chandramohan@arm.com>
Co-authored-by: Peter Steinfeld <psteinfeld@nvidia.com>
The code in widenInstruction has already been transitioned to
only rely on information provided by VPWidenRecipe directly.
Moving the code directly to VPWidenRecipe::execute completes
the transition for the recipe.
It provides the following advantages:
1. Less indirection, easier to see what's going on.
2. Removes accesses to fields of ILV.
2) in particular ensures that no dependencies on
fields in ILV for vector code generation are re-introduced.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114322
This patch adds the common base shared by builder runtime
unittests. It extracted from D114460 to make it easier to base other patches
on it.
Reviewed By: kiranchandramohan, rovka
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114557
Bitfields are special. Due to integral promotion [conv.prom/5] bitfield
member access expressions are frequently wrapped by an implicit cast to
`int` if that type can represent all the values of the bitfield.
Consider these examples:
struct SmallBitfield { unsigned int id : 4; };
x.id & 1; (case-1)
x.id & 1u; (case-2)
x.id << 1u; (case-3)
(unsigned)x.id << 1; (case-4)
Due to the promotion rules, we would get a warning for case-1. It's
debatable how useful this is, but the user at least has a convenient way
of //fixing// it by adding the `u` unsigned-suffix to the literal as
demonstrated by case-2. However, this won't work for shift operators like
the one in case-3. In case of a normal binary operator, both operands
contribute to the result type. However, the type of the shift expression is
the promoted type of the left operand. One could still suppress this
superfluous warning by explicitly casting the bitfield member access as
case-4 demonstrates, but why? The compiler already knew that the value from
the member access should safely fit into an `int`, why do we have this
warning in the first place? So, hereby we suppress this specific scenario,
when a bitfield's value is implicitly cast to int (likely due to integral
promotion).
Note that the bitshift operation might invoke unspecified/undefined
behavior, but that's another topic, this checker is about detecting
conversion-related defects.
Example AST for `x.id << 1`:
BinaryOperator 'int' '<<'
|-ImplicitCastExpr 'int' <IntegralCast>
| `-ImplicitCastExpr 'unsigned int' <LValueToRValue>
| `-MemberExpr 'unsigned int' lvalue bitfield .id
| `-DeclRefExpr 'SmallBitfield' lvalue ParmVar 'x' 'SmallBitfield'
`-IntegerLiteral 'int' 1
Reviewed By: courbet
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114105
Invalid SourceRanges can occur generally if the code does not compile,
thus we expect clang error diagnostics.
Unlike `clang`, `clang-tidy` did not swallow invalid source ranges, but
tried to highlight them, and blow various assertions.
The following two examples produce invalid source ranges, but this is
not a complete list:
void test(x); // error: unknown type name 'x'
struct Foo {
member; // error: C++ requires a type specifier for all declarations
};
Thanks @whisperity helping me fix this.
Reviewed-By: xazax.hun
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114254
The `cppcoreguidelines-virtual-base-class-destructor` checker crashed on
this example:
#define DECLARE(CLASS) \
class CLASS { \
protected: \
virtual ~CLASS(); \
}
DECLARE(Foo); // no-crash
The checker will hit the following assertion:
clang-tidy: llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Optional.h:196: T &llvm::optional_detail::OptionalStorage<clang::Token, true>::getValue() & [T = clang::Token]: Assertion `hasVal' failed."
It turns out, `Lexer::findNextToken()` returned `llvm::None` within the
`getVirtualKeywordRange()` function when the `VirtualEndLoc`
SourceLocation represents a macro expansion.
To prevent this from happening, I decided to propagate the `llvm::None`
further up and only create the removal of `virtual` if the
`getVirtualKeywordRange()` succeeds.
I considered an alternative fix for this issue:
I could have checked the `Destructor.getLocation().isMacroID()` before
doing any Fixit calculation inside the `check()` function.
In contrast to this approach my patch will preserve the diagnostics and
drop the fixits only if it would have crashed.
Reviewed By: whisperity
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113558
In most common cases the @llvm.get.active.lane.mask intrinsic maps directly
to the SVE whilelo instruction, which already takes overflow into account.
However, currently in SelectionDAGBuilder::visitIntrinsicCall we always lower
this immediately to a generic sequence of instructions that explicitly
take overflow into account. This makes it very difficult to then later
transform back into a single whilelo instruction. Therefore, this patch
introduces a new TLI function called shouldExpandGetActiveLaneMask that asks if
we should lower/expand this to a sequence of generic ISD nodes, or instead
just leave it as an intrinsic for the target to lower.
You can see the significant improvement in code quality for some of the
tests in this file:
CodeGen/AArch64/active_lane_mask.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114542
The current code was relying on the fact that allocatables are deferred
shape and that isAssumedShape() should therefore return true for them.
This is not true, because the current parsing/semantic analysis always
builds a semantics::ArraySpec for `x(:)` that returns true to both
isDeferredShape()/isAssumedShape(), whether x is allocatable/pointer or
not.
It proved tricky to change this behavior, so this is a simple fix for
IsSymplyContiguous where it currently matters, but we most likely want
to investigate more and fix the isDeferredShape()/isAssumedShape() in
a second time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114599
Make one change: when the OutputSection is nullptr (due to /DISCARD/ or garbage
collected BssSection (replaceCommonSymbols)), discard the SyntheticSection as well.
Checker alpha.security.taint.TaintPropagation now has user documentation for
taint analysis with an example showing external YAML configuration format.
The format of the taint configuration file is now documented under the user
documentation of Clang SA.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113251
This test uses split-dwarf feature, which is not currently supported on AIX. Set this test to `UNSUPPORTED` on AIX for now.
Reviewed By: shchenz
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114567
While working on an integration, I found a lot of inconsistencies on IR printing and verification. It turns out that we were:
* Only doing "soft fail" verification on IR printing of Operation, not of a Module.
* Failed verification was interacting badly with binary=True IR printing (causing a TypeError trying to pass an `str` to a `bytes` based handle).
* For systematic integrations, it is often desirable to control verification yourself so that you can explicitly handle errors.
This patch:
* Trues up the "soft fail" semantics by having `Module.__str__` delegate to `Operation.__str__` vs having a shortcut implementation.
* Fixes soft fail in the presence of binary=True (and adds an additional happy path test case to make sure the binary functionality works).
* Adds an `assume_verified` boolean flag to the `print`/`get_asm` methods which disables internal verification, presupposing that the caller has taken care of it.
It turns out that we had a number of tests which were generating illegal IR but it wasn't being caught because they were doing a print on the `Module` vs operation. All except two were trivially fixed:
* linalg/ops.py : Had two tests for direct constructing a Matmul incorrectly. Fixing them made them just like the next two tests so just deleted (no need to test the verifier only at this level).
* linalg/opdsl/emit_structured_generic.py : Hand coded conv and pooling tests appear to be using illegal shaped inputs/outputs, causing a verification failure. I just used the `assume_verified=` flag to restore the original behavior and left a TODO. Will get someone who owns that to fix it properly in a followup (would also be nice to break this file up into multiple test modules as it is hard to tell exactly what is failing).
Notes to downstreams:
* If, like some of our tests, you get verification failures after this patch, it is likely that your IR was always invalid and you will need to fix the root cause. To temporarily revert to prior (broken) behavior, replace calls like `print(module)` with `print(module.operation.get_asm(assume_verified=True))`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114680
This doc lists ways of getting compilation databases out of some popular build systems for use with clangd and other tooling.
We built such a way for Bazel and just released it after a bunch of requests on GitHub. Thought I should propose that we add a link to help people find it and use clang tooling.
(This is my first revision submitted via LLVM Phabricator, so if I've messed something up, I'd really appreciate your help and patience. Asking for a review from Sam McCall, because I've had a great time working with him elsewhere on GitHub before and because I saw him in the Git history for this file.)
Reviewed By: sammccall
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114213
I attempted to remove it 1 or 2 year ago but kept it just to have a good
diagnostic in case the output section is nullptr (should be impossible).
It is long enough that we haven't seen such a case.
Roman Lebedev