Recommit basic sibling call lowering (https://reviews.llvm.org/D67189)
The issue was that if you have a return type other than void, call lowering
will emit COPYs to get the return value after the call.
Disallow sibling calls other than ones that return void for now. Also
proactively disable swifterror tail calls for now, since there's a similar issue
with COPYs there.
Update call-translator-tail-call.ll to include test cases for each of these
things.
llvm-svn: 371114
This adds support for basic sibling call lowering in AArch64. The intent here is
to only handle tail calls which do not change the ABI (hence, sibling calls.)
At this point, it is very restricted. It does not handle
- Vararg calls.
- Calls with outgoing arguments.
- Calls whose calling conventions differ from the caller's calling convention.
- Tail/sibling calls with BTI enabled.
This patch adds
- `AArch64CallLowering::isEligibleForTailCallOptimization`, which is equivalent
to the same function in AArch64ISelLowering.cpp (albeit with the restrictions
above.)
- `mayTailCallThisCC` and `canGuaranteeTCO`, which are identical to those in
AArch64ISelLowering.cpp.
- `getCallOpcode`, which is exactly what it sounds like.
Tail/sibling calls are lowered by checking if they pass target-independent tail
call positioning checks, and checking if they satisfy
`isEligibleForTailCallOptimization`. If they do, then a tail call instruction is
emitted instead of a normal call. If we have a sibling call (which is always the
case in this patch), then we do not emit any stack adjustment operations. When
we go to lower a return, we check if we've already emitted a tail call. If so,
then we skip the return lowering.
For testing, this patch
- Adds call-translator-tail-call.ll to test which tail calls we currently lower,
which ones we don't, and which ones we shouldn't.
- Updates branch-target-enforcement-indirect-calls.ll to show that we fall back
as expected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67189
........
This fails on EXPENSIVE_CHECKS builds due to a -verify-machineinstrs test failure in CodeGen/AArch64/dllimport.ll
llvm-svn: 371051
This adds support for basic sibling call lowering in AArch64. The intent here is
to only handle tail calls which do not change the ABI (hence, sibling calls.)
At this point, it is very restricted. It does not handle
- Vararg calls.
- Calls with outgoing arguments.
- Calls whose calling conventions differ from the caller's calling convention.
- Tail/sibling calls with BTI enabled.
This patch adds
- `AArch64CallLowering::isEligibleForTailCallOptimization`, which is equivalent
to the same function in AArch64ISelLowering.cpp (albeit with the restrictions
above.)
- `mayTailCallThisCC` and `canGuaranteeTCO`, which are identical to those in
AArch64ISelLowering.cpp.
- `getCallOpcode`, which is exactly what it sounds like.
Tail/sibling calls are lowered by checking if they pass target-independent tail
call positioning checks, and checking if they satisfy
`isEligibleForTailCallOptimization`. If they do, then a tail call instruction is
emitted instead of a normal call. If we have a sibling call (which is always the
case in this patch), then we do not emit any stack adjustment operations. When
we go to lower a return, we check if we've already emitted a tail call. If so,
then we skip the return lowering.
For testing, this patch
- Adds call-translator-tail-call.ll to test which tail calls we currently lower,
which ones we don't, and which ones we shouldn't.
- Updates branch-target-enforcement-indirect-calls.ll to show that we fall back
as expected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67189
llvm-svn: 370996
When branch target identification is enabled, all indirectly-callable
functions start with a BTI C instruction. this instruction can only be
the target of certain indirect branches (direct branches and
fall-through are not affected):
- A BLR instruction, in either a protected or unprotected page.
- A BR instruction in a protected page, using x16 or x17.
- A BR instruction in an unprotected page, using any register.
Without BTI, we can use any non call-preserved register to hold the
address for an indirect tail call. However, when BTI is enabled, then
the code being compiled might be loaded into a BTI-protected page, where
only x16 and x17 can be used for indirect tail calls.
Legacy code withiout this restriction can still indirectly tail-call
BTI-protected functions, because they will be loaded into an unprotected
page, so any register is allowed.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52868
llvm-svn: 343968
Jessica Paquette