Generate btf_tag annotations for function parameters.
A field "annotations" is introduced to DILocalVariable, and
annotations are represented as an DINodeArray, similar to
DIComposite elements. The following example illustrates how
annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DILocalVariable(name: "info",, arg: 1, ..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106620
Generate btf_tag annotations for DIGlobalVariable.
A field "annotations" is introduced to DIGlobalVariable, and
annotations are represented as an DINodeArray, similar to
DIComposite elements. The following example illustrates how
annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DIGlobalVariable(..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106619
Generate btf_tag annotations for DISubprogram types.
A field "annotations" is introduced to DISubprogram, and
annotations are represented as an DINodeArray, similar to
DIComposite elements. The following example illustrates how
annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DISubprogram(..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106618
Generate btf_tag annotations for DIDrived types. More specifically,
clang frontend generates the btf_tag annotations for record
fields. The annotations are represented as an DINodeArray
in DebugInfo. The following example illustrate how
annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DIDerivedType(tag: DW_TAG_member, ..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106616
The purpose of __attribute__((disable_sanitizer_instrumentation)) is to
prevent all kinds of sanitizer instrumentation applied to a certain
function, Objective-C method, or global variable.
The no_sanitize(...) attribute drops instrumentation checks, but may
still insert code preventing false positive reports. In some cases
though (e.g. when building Linux kernel with -fsanitize=kernel-memory
or -fsanitize=thread) the users may want to avoid any kind of
instrumentation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108029
Clang patch D106614 added attribute btf_tag support. This patch
generates btf_tag annotations for DIComposite types.
A field "annotations" is introduced to DIComposite, and the
annotations are represented as an DINodeArray, similar to
DIComposite elements. The following example illustrates
how annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DICompositeType(..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Each btf_tag annotation is represented as a 2D array of
meta strings. Each record may have more than one
btf_tag annotations, as in the above example.
Reland with additional fixes for llvm/unittests/IR/DebugTypeODRUniquingTest.cpp.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106615
Clang patch D106614 added attribute btf_tag support. This patch
generates btf_tag annotations for DIComposite types.
A field "annotations" is introduced to DIComposite, and the
annotations are represented as an DINodeArray, similar to
DIComposite elements. The following example illustrates
how annotations are encoded in IR:
distinct !DICompositeType(..., annotations: !10)
!10 = !{!11, !12}
!11 = !{!"btf_tag", !"a"}
!12 = !{!"btf_tag", !"b"}
Each btf_tag annotation is represented as a 2D array of
meta strings. Each record may have more than one
btf_tag annotations, as in the above example.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106615
In the textual format, `noduplicates` means no COMDAT/section group
deduplication is performed. Therefore, if both sets of sections are retained, and
they happen to define strong external symbols with the same names,
there will be a duplicate definition linker error.
In PE/COFF, the selection kind lowers to `IMAGE_COMDAT_SELECT_NODUPLICATES`.
The name describes the corollary instead of the immediate semantics. The name
can cause confusion to other binary formats (ELF, wasm) which have implemented/
want to implement the "no deduplication" selection kind. Rename it to be clearer.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106319
For attributes in legacy bitcode that are now typed, explicitly
create a type attribute with nullptr type, the same as we do
for the attribute group representation. This is so we can assert
use of the correct constructor in the future.
Use the elementtype attribute introduced in D105407 for the
llvm.preserve.array/struct.index intrinsics. It carries the
element type of the GEP these intrinsics effectively encode.
This patch:
* Adds a verifier check that the attribute is required.
* Adds it in the IRBuilder methods for these intrinsics.
* Autoupgrades old bitcode without the attribute.
* Updates the lowering code to use the attribute rather than
the pointer element type.
* Updates lots of tests to specify the attribute.
* Adds -force-opaque-pointers to the intrinsic-array.ll test
to demonstrate they work now.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106184
This implements the elementtype attribute specified in D105407. It
just adds the attribute and the specified verifier rules, but
doesn't yet make use of it anywhere.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106008
Assert that enum/int/type attributes go through the constructor
they are supposed to use.
To make sure this can't happen via invalid bitcode, explicitly
verify that the attribute kind if correct there.
Followup to D105658 to make AttrBuilder automatically work with
new type attributes. TableGen is tweaked to emit First/LastTypeAttr
markers, based on which we can handle type attributes
programmatically.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105763
This reverts commit 8cd35ad854.
It breaks `TestMembersAndLocalsWithSameName.py` on GreenDragon and
Mikael Holmén points out in D104827 that bitcode files created with the
patch cannot be parsed with binaries built before it.
For example, byval.
Skip the type attribute auto-upgrade if we already have the type.
I've actually seen this error of the ValueEnumerator missing a type
attribute's type in a non-opaque pointer context.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105138
Add UNIQUED and DISTINCT properties in Metadata.def and use them to
implement restrictions on the `distinct` property of MDNodes:
* DIExpression can currently be parsed from IR or read from bitcode
as `distinct`, but this property is silently dropped when printing
to IR. This causes accepted IR to fail to round-trip. As DIExpression
appears inline at each use in the canonical form of IR, it cannot
actually be `distinct` anyway, as there is no syntax to describe it.
* Similarly, DIArgList is conceptually always uniqued. It is currently
restricted to only appearing in contexts where there is no syntax for
`distinct`, but for consistency it is treated equivalently to
DIExpression in this patch.
* DICompileUnit is already restricted to always being `distinct`, but
along with adding general support for the inverse restriction I went
ahead and described this in Metadata.def and updated the parser to be
general. Future nodes which have this restriction can share this
support.
The new UNIQUED property applies to DIExpression and DIArgList, and
forbids them to be `distinct`. It also implies they are canonically
printed inline at each use, rather than via MDNode ID.
The new DISTINCT property applies to DICompileUnit, and requires it to
be `distinct`.
A potential alternative change is to forbid the non-inline syntax for
DIExpression entirely, as is done with DIArgList implicitly by requiring
it appear in the context of a function. For example, we would forbid:
!named = !{!0}
!0 = !DIExpression()
Instead we would only accept the equivalent inlined version:
!named = !{!DIExpression()}
This essentially removes the ability to create a `distinct` DIExpression
by construction, as there is no syntax for `distinct` inline. If this
patch is accepted as-is, the result would be that the non-canonical
version is accepted, but the following would be an error and produce a diagnostic:
!named = !{!0}
; error: 'distinct' not allowed for !DIExpression()
!0 = distinct !DIExpression()
Also update some documentation to consistently use the inline syntax for
DIExpression, and to describe the restrictions on `distinct` for nodes
where applicable.
Reviewed By: StephenTozer, t-tye
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104827
After D104475 / D104658, building the Linux kernel with ThinLTO is
broken:
ld.lld: error: Unknown attribute kind (73) (Producer: 'LLVM13.0.0git'
Reader: 'LLVM 13.0.0git')
getAttrFromCode() has never handled this attribute so it is written
during the ThinLTO phase but it cannot be handled during the linking
phase.
Add noprofile to getAttrFromCode() so that disassembly works properly.
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104995
We don't want to start updating tests to use opaque pointers until we're
close to the opaque pointer transition. However, before the transition
we want to run tests as if pointers are opaque pointers to see if there
are any crashes.
At some point when we have a flag to only create opaque pointers in the
bitcode and textual IR readers, and when we have fixed all places that
try to read a pointee type, this flag will be useless. However, until
then, this can help us find issues more easily.
Since the cl::opt is read into LLVMContext, we need to make sure
LLVMContext is created after cl::ParseCommandLineOptions().
Previously ValueEnumerator would visit the value types of global values
via the pointer type, but with opaque pointers we have to manually visit
the value type.
Reviewed By: nikic, dexonsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103503
Add support for call of opaque pointer, currently only possible for
indirect calls.
This requires a bit of special casing in LLParser, as calls do not
specify the callee operand type explicitly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104740
Adjust assertions to use isOpaqueOrPointeeTypeMatches() and make
it return an opaque pointer result for an opaque base pointer. We
also need to enumerate the element type, as it is no longer
implicitly enumerated through the pointer type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104655
For a GEP on an opaque pointer, also return an opaque pointer (or
vector of opaque pointer) result.
This requires explicitly enumerating the GEP source element type,
because it is now no longer implicitly enumerated as part of either
the source or result pointer types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104652
It assumes that PointerType will keep having an optional pointee type,
but we'd like to remove the pointee type in PointerType at some point.
I feel like the current implementation could be simplified anyway,
although perhaps I'm underestimating the amount of work needed
throughout BitcodeReader.
We will still need a side table to keep track of pointee types. This
will be reimplemented at some point.
This is essentially a revert of a4771e9d (which doesn't look like it was
reviewed anyway).
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103135
FullTy is only necessary when we need to figure out what type an
instruction works with given a pointer's pointee type. However, we just
end up using the value operand's type, so FullTy isn't necessary.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102788
Since the opaque pointer type won't contain the pointee type, we need to
separately encode the value type for an atomicrmw.
Emit this new code for atomicrmw.
Handle this new code and the old one in the bitcode reader.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103123
We really ought to support no_sanitize("coverage") in line with other
sanitizers. This came up again in discussions on the Linux-kernel
mailing lists, because we currently do workarounds using objtool to
remove coverage instrumentation. Since that support is only on x86, to
continue support coverage instrumentation on other architectures, we
must support selectively disabling coverage instrumentation via function
attributes.
Unfortunately, for SanitizeCoverage, it has not been implemented as a
sanitizer via fsanitize= and associated options in Sanitizers.def, but
rolls its own option fsanitize-coverage. This meant that we never got
"automatic" no_sanitize attribute support.
Implement no_sanitize attribute support by special-casing the string
"coverage" in the NoSanitizeAttr implementation. To keep the feature as
unintrusive to existing IR generation as possible, define a new negative
function attribute NoSanitizeCoverage to propagate the information
through to the instrumentation pass.
Fixes: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49035
Reviewed By: vitalybuka, morehouse
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102772
These checks already exist as asserts when creating the corresponding
instruction. Anybody creating these instructions already need to take
care to not break these checks.
Move the checks for success/failure ordering in cmpxchg from the
verifier to the LLParser and BitcodeReader plus an assert.
Add some tests for cmpxchg ordering. The .bc files are created from the
.ll files with an llvm-as with these checks disabled.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102803
This is a follow-up of D102201. After some discussion, it is a better idea
to upgrade all invalid uses of alignment attributes on function return
values and parameters, not just limited to void function return types.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102726
FullTy is only necessary when we need to figure out what type an
instruction works with given a pointer's pointee type. However, we just
end up using the value operand's type, so FullTy isn't necessary.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102788
No verifier changes needed, the verifier currently doesn't check that
the pointer operand's pointee type matches the GEP type. There is a
similar check in GetElementPtrInst::Create() though.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102744
Don't check that types match when the pointer operand is an opaque
pointer.
I would separate the Assembler and Verifier changes, but
verify-uselistorder in the Assembler test ends up running the verifier.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102450
This extends any frame record created in the function to include that
parameter, passed in X22.
The new record looks like [X22, FP, LR] in memory, and FP is stored with 0b0001
in bits 63:60 (CodeGen assumes they are 0b0000 in normal operation). The effect
of this is that tools walking the stack should expect to see one of three
values there:
* 0b0000 => a normal, non-extended record with just [FP, LR]
* 0b0001 => the extended record [X22, FP, LR]
* 0b1111 => kernel space, and a non-extended record.
All other values are currently reserved.
If compiling for arm64e this context pointer is address-discriminated with the
discriminator 0xc31a and the DB (process-specific) key.
There is also an "i8** @llvm.swift.async.context.addr()" intrinsic providing
front-ends access to this slot (and forcing its creation initialized to nullptr
if necessary).
The opaque pointer type is essentially just a normal pointer type with a
null pointee type.
This also adds support for the opaque pointer type to the bitcode
reader/writer, as well as to textual IR.
To avoid confusion with existing pointer types, we disallow creating a
pointer to an opaque pointer.
Opaque pointer types should not be widely used at this point since many
parts of LLVM still do not support them. The next steps are to add some
very simple use cases of opaque pointers to make sure they work, then
start pretending that all pointers are opaque pointers and see what
breaks.
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150359.html
Reviewed By: dblaikie, dexonsmith, pcc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101704
I've taken the following steps to add unwinding support from inline assembly:
1) Add a new `unwind` "attribute" (like `sideeffect`) to the asm syntax:
```
invoke void asm sideeffect unwind "call thrower", "~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"()
to label %exit unwind label %uexit
```
2.) Add Bitcode writing/reading support + LLVM-IR parsing.
3.) Emit EHLabels around inline assembly lowering (SelectionDAGBuilder + GlobalISel) when `InlineAsm::canThrow` is enabled.
4.) Tweak InstCombineCalls/InlineFunction pass to not mark inline assembly "calls" as nounwind.
5.) Add clang support by introducing a new clobber: "unwind", which lower to the `canThrow` being enabled.
6.) Don't allow unwinding callbr.
Reviewed By: Amanieu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95745
Since D87304, `align` become an invalid attribute on none pointer types and
verifier will reject bitcode that has invalid `align` attribute.
The problem is before the change, DeadArgumentElimination can easily
turn a pointer return type into a void return type without removing
`align` attribute. Teach Autograde to remove invalid `align` attribute
from return types to maintain bitcode compatibility.
rdar://77022993
Reviewed By: dexonsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102201
This patch fixes an issue in which ConstantAsMetadata arguments to a
DIArglist, as well as the Constant values referenced by that metadata,
would not be always be emitted correctly into bitcode. This patch fixes
this issue firstly by searching for ConstantAsMetadata in DIArgLists
(previously we would only search for them when directly wrapped in
MetadataAsValue), and secondly by enumerating all of a DIArgList's
arguments directly prior to enumerating the DIArgList itself.
This patch also adds a number of asserts, and no longer treats the
arguments to a DIArgList as optional fields when reading/writing to
bitcode.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100572
Yonghong Song