Gracefully leave code that performs function-pointer bitcasts implying
non-trivial pointer conversions alone, rather than aborting, since it's
just undefined behavior.
llvm-svn: 291326
WebAssembly requires caller and callee signatures to match exactly. In LLVM,
there are a variety of circumstances where signatures may be mismatched in
practice, and one can bitcast a function address to another type to call it
as that type. This patch adds a pass which replaces bitcasted function
addresses with wrappers to replace the bitcasts.
This doesn't catch everything, but it does match many common cases.
llvm-svn: 291315
Re-apply r288561: This time with a fix where the ADDs that are part of a
3 instruction LOH would not invalidate the "LastAdrp" state. This fixes
http://llvm.org/PR31361
Previously this pass was using up to 5% compile time in some cases which
is a bit much for what it is doing. The pass featured a full blown
data-flow analysis which in the default configuration was restricted to a
single block.
This rewrites the pass under the assumption that we only ever work on a
single block. This is done in a single pass maintaining a state machine
per general purpose register to catch LOH patterns.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27329
This reverts commit 9e6cedb0a4f14364d6511597a9160305e7d34493.
llvm-svn: 291266
Summary:
For instructions such as PSLLW/PSLLD/PSLLQ a variable shift amount may be passed in an XMM register.
The lower 64-bits of the register are evaluated to determine the shift amount.
This patch improves the construction of the vector containing the shift amount.
Reviewers: craig.topper, delena, RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28353
llvm-svn: 291120
This code seems to be target dependent which may not be the same for all targets.
Passed the decision whether the given stride is complex or not to the target by sending stride information via SCEV to getAddressComputationCost instead of 'IsComplex'.
Specifically at X86 targets we dont see any significant address computation cost in case of the strided access in general.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27518
llvm-svn: 291106
This change aims to unify and correct our logic for when we need to allow for
the possibility of the linker adding a TOC restoration instruction after a
call. This comes up in two contexts:
1. When determining tail-call eligibility. If we make a tail call (i.e.
directly branch to a function) then there is no place for the linker to add
a TOC restoration.
2. When determining when we need to add a nop instruction after a call.
Likewise, if there is a possibility that the linker might need to add a
TOC restoration after a call, then we need to put a nop after the call
(the bl instruction).
First problem: We were using similar, but different, logic to decide (1) and
(2). This is just wrong. Both the resideInSameModule function (used when
determining tail-call eligibility) and the isLocalCall function (used when
deciding if the post-call nop is needed) were supposed to be determining the
same underlying fact (i.e. might a TOC restoration be needed after the call).
The same logic should be used in both places.
Second problem: The logic in both places was wrong. We only know that two
functions will share the same TOC when both functions come from the same
section of the same object. Otherwise the linker might cause the functions to
use different TOC base addresses (unless the multi-TOC linker option is
disabled, in which case only shared-library boundaries are relevant). There are
a number of factors that can cause functions to be placed in different sections
or come from different objects (-ffunction-sections, explicitly-specified
section names, COMDAT, weak linkage, etc.). All of these need to be checked.
The existing logic only checked properties of the callee, but the properties of
the caller must also be checked (for example, calling from a function in a
COMDAT section means calling between sections).
There was a conceptual error in the resideInSameModule function in that it
allowed tail calls to functions with weak linkage and protected/hidden
visibility. While protected/hidden visibility does prevent the function
implementation from being replaced at runtime (via interposition), it does not
prevent the linker from using an alternate implementation at link time (i.e.
using some strong definition to replace the provided weak one during linking).
If this happens, then we're still potentially looking at a required TOC
restoration upon return.
Otherwise, in general, the post-call nop is needed wherever ELF interposition
needs to be supported. We don't currently support ELF interposition at the IR
level (see http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107625.html
for more information), and I don't think we should try to make it appear to
work in the backend in spite of that fact. Unfortunately, because of the way
that the ABI works, we need to generate code as if we supported interposition
whenever the linker might insert stubs for the purpose of supporting it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27231
llvm-svn: 291003
