Summary:
NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".
As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.
Reviewers: hfinkel, xbolva00, lebedev.ri, nikic, rjmccall, spatel, jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: thopre, yamauchi, kuter, fhahn, merge_guards_bot, hiraditya, bollu, rkruppe, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71739
Assume bundle can have more than one entry with the same name,
but at least AlignmentFromAssumptionsPass::extractAlignmentInfo() uses
getOperandBundle("align"), which internally assumes that it isn't the
case, and happily crashes otherwise.
Minimal reduced reproducer: run `opt -alignment-from-assumptions` on
target datalayout = "e-m:e-p270:32:32-p271:32:32-p272:64:64-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"
%0 = type { i64, %1*, i8*, i64, %2, i32, %3*, i8* }
%1 = type opaque
%2 = type { i8, i8, i16 }
%3 = type { i32, i32, i32, i32 }
; Function Attrs: nounwind
define i32 @f(%0* noalias nocapture readonly %arg, %0* noalias %arg1) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
bb:
call void @llvm.assume(i1 true) [ "align"(%0* %arg, i64 8), "align"(%0* %arg1, i64 8) ]
ret i32 0
}
; Function Attrs: nounwind willreturn
declare void @llvm.assume(i1) #1
attributes #0 = { nounwind "reciprocal-estimates"="none" }
attributes #1 = { nounwind willreturn }
This is what we'd have with -mllvm -enable-knowledge-retention
This reverts commit c95ffadb24.
Summary:
NOTE: There is a mailing list discussion on this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137632.html
Complemantary to the assumption outliner prototype in D71692, this patch
shows how we could simplify the code emitted for an alignemnt
assumption. The generated code is smaller, less fragile, and it makes it
easier to recognize the additional use as a "assumption use".
As mentioned in D71692 and on the mailing list, we could adopt this
scheme, and similar schemes for other patterns, without adopting the
assumption outlining.
Reviewers: hfinkel, xbolva00, lebedev.ri, nikic, rjmccall, spatel, jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: yamauchi, kuter, fhahn, merge_guards_bot, hiraditya, bollu, rkruppe, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71739
Summary:
Clang -fpic defaults to -fno-semantic-interposition (GCC -fpic defaults
to -fsemantic-interposition).
Users need to specify -fsemantic-interposition to get semantic
interposition behavior.
Semantic interposition is currently a best-effort feature. There may
still be some cases where it is not handled well.
Reviewers: peter.smith, rnk, serge-sans-paille, sfertile, jfb, jdoerfert
Subscribers: dschuff, jyknight, dylanmckay, nemanjai, jvesely, kbarton, fedor.sergeev, asb, rbar, johnrusso, simoncook, sabuasal, niosHD, jrtc27, zzheng, edward-jones, atanasyan, rogfer01, MartinMosbeck, brucehoult, the_o, arphaman, PkmX, jocewei, jsji, Jim, lenary, s.egerton, pzheng, sameer.abuasal, apazos, luismarques, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73865
Summary:
This should be mostly NFC - we still lower the same alignment
knowledge to the IR. The main reasoning here is that
this somewhat improves readability of IR like this,
and will improve test coverage in upcoming patch.
Even though the alignment is guaranteed to always be an I-C-E,
we don't always materialize it as llvm's Alignment Attribute because:
1. There may be a non-zero offset
2. We may be sanitizing for alignment
Note that if there already was an IR alignment attribute
on return value, we union them, and thus the alignment
only ever rises.
Also, there is a second relevant clang attribute `AllocAlignAttr`,
so that is why `AbstractAssumeAlignedAttrEmitter` is templated.
Reviewers: erichkeane, jdoerfert, hfinkel, aaron.ballman, rsmith
Reviewed By: erichkeane
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73005
Summary:
UB isn't nice. It's cool and powerful, but not nice.
Having a way to detect it is nice though.
[[ https://wg21.link/p1007r3 | P1007R3: std::assume_aligned ]] / http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1007r2.pdf says:
```
We propose to add this functionality via a library function instead of a core language attribute.
...
If the pointer passed in is not aligned to at least N bytes, calling assume_aligned results in undefined behaviour.
```
This differential teaches clang to sanitize all the various variants of this assume-aligned attribute.
Requires D54588 for LLVM IRBuilder changes.
The compiler-rt part is D54590.
This is a second commit, the original one was r351105,
which was mass-reverted in r351159 because 2 compiler-rt tests were failing.
Reviewers: ABataev, craig.topper, vsk, rsmith, rnk, #sanitizers, erichkeane, filcab, rjmccall
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Subscribers: chandlerc, ldionne, EricWF, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, bkramer
Tags: #sanitizers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54589
llvm-svn: 351177
Summary:
UB isn't nice. It's cool and powerful, but not nice.
Having a way to detect it is nice though.
[[ https://wg21.link/p1007r3 | P1007R3: std::assume_aligned ]] / http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1007r2.pdf says:
```
We propose to add this functionality via a library function instead of a core language attribute.
...
If the pointer passed in is not aligned to at least N bytes, calling assume_aligned results in undefined behaviour.
```
This differential teaches clang to sanitize all the various variants of this assume-aligned attribute.
Requires D54588 for LLVM IRBuilder changes.
The compiler-rt part is D54590.
Reviewers: ABataev, craig.topper, vsk, rsmith, rnk, #sanitizers, erichkeane, filcab, rjmccall
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Subscribers: chandlerc, ldionne, EricWF, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, bkramer
Tags: #sanitizers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54589
llvm-svn: 351105
Eric Christopher