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
This roughly matches the semantics of std::enable_shared_from_this - that it
does not dictate the ownership model of all users, but constrains those users
taking advantage of the intrusive nature to do so only when there's a guarantee
that that's the ownership model being used for the object being passed.
Reviewers: jlebar
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28245
llvm-svn: 290987
This test case has been reduced from test/Analysis/RegionInfo/mix_1.ll and
provides us with a minimal example of a test case which caused problems while
working on an improved version of the RegionInfo analysis. We upstream this
test case, as it certainly can be helpful in future debugging and optimization
tests.
Test case reduced by Pratik Bhatu <cs12b1010@iith.ac.in>
llvm-svn: 290974
This reapplies r289828 (reverted in r289833 as it broke the address sanitizer). The
debugloc is now only set when the instruction is not a call, as this causes the
verifier to assert (the inliner requires an inlinable callsite to have a debug loc
if the caller and callee have debug info).
Original commit message:
Simplify CFG will try to sink the last instruction in a series of basic blocks,
creating a "common" instruction in the successor block (sinkLastInstruction).
When it does this, the debug location of the single instruction should be the
merged debug locations of the commoned instructions.
Original review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27590
llvm-svn: 290973
These tests are missing a target triple and the -m elf_x86_64 gold option,
which makes them fail on non-x86 targets.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28285
Reviewers: tejohnson
llvm-svn: 290965
Summary:
Change llvm-link to use the FunctionImporter handling, instead of
manually invoking the Linker. We still need to load the module
in llvm-link to do the desired testing for invalid import requests
(weak functions), and to get the GUID (in case the function is local).
Also change the drop-debug-info test to use llvm-link so that importing
is forced (in order to test debug info handling) and independent of
import logic changes.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini
Subscribers: mgorny, llvm-commits, aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28277
llvm-svn: 290964
This CPU type was not previously recognized by LLVM which led to emitting
poor (and sometimes incorrect) code in some JIT workloads on such a machine.
llvm-svn: 290961
Summary:
In mergeSPUpdates, debug values need to be ignored when getting the
previous element, otherwise debug data could have an impact on codegen.
In eliminateCallFramePseudoInstr, debug values after the erased element
could have an impact on codegen and should be skipped.
Closes PR31319 (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31319)
Reviewers: aprantl, MatzeB, mkuper
Subscribers: gbedwell, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27688
llvm-svn: 290955
This just removes the usage of llvm::reverse and llvm::seq. That makes
it harder to handle the empty case correctly and so I've also added
a test there.
This is just a shot in the dark at what might be behind the buildbot
failures. I can't reproduce any issues locally including with ASan...
I feel like I'm missing something...
llvm-svn: 290954
This is both convenient and more efficient as we can skip any
intermediate reallocation of the vector.
This usage pattern came up in a subsequent patch on the pass manager,
but it seems generically useful so I factored it out and added unittests
here.
llvm-svn: 290952
Summary:
The InlineSpiller was accessing the DominatorTreeBase directly
through the public data member DT in the MachineDominatorTree.
This is not a good idea as the "cached" information in
SplitCriticalEdges is not applied before the access.
The DominatorTreeBase must be accessed through the member
function getBase() in MachineDominatorTree.
The fault was introduced in r266162.
I think the public data member DT in the MachineDominatorTree
should have been made private in the original code (r215576)
that introduced the concept of lazily updating the
MachineDominatorTree information from
MachineBasicBlock::SplitCriticalEdge().
Patch by Karl-Johan Karlsson <karl-johan.karlsson@ericsson.com>
Reviewers: wmi, qcolombet
Subscribers: llvm-commits, bjope, uabelho
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27983
llvm-svn: 290950
Replacing the memory operand in the intrinsic versions of the comis/ucomis instrucions from f128mem to ssmem/sdmem accordingly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28138
llvm-svn: 290948
In some cases its more efficient to combine TRUNC( BINOP( X, Y ) ) --> BINOP( TRUNC( X ), TRUNC( Y ) ) if the binop is legal for the truncated types.
This is true for vector integer multiplication (especially vXi64), as well as ADD/AND/XOR/OR in cases where we only need to truncate one of the inputs at runtime (e.g. a duplicated input or an one use constant we can fold).
Further work could be done here - scalar cases (especially i64) could often benefit (if we avoid partial registers etc.), other opcodes, and better analysis of when truncating the inputs reduces costs.
I have considered implementing this for all targets within the DAGCombiner but wasn't sure we could devise a suitable cost model system that would give us the range we need.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28219
llvm-svn: 290947
0-7: Address
8-11: Line
12-13: Column
14-15: File
16-19: Isa
20-23: Discriminator
24+: bit fields
The packing is fine until the "Isa" field, which is an 8-bit int that occupies 4 bytes. We can instead move Discriminator into the 16-19 slot, and pack Isa into the 20-23 range along with the bit fields:
0-7: Address
8-11: Line
12-13: Column
14-15: File
16-19: Discriminator
20-23: Isa + bit fields
This layout is only 24 bytes. This 25% reduction in size may seem small but a large binary can have line tables with thousands of rows stored in a vector.
Patch by Simon Que!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27961
llvm-svn: 290931
We can perform the following:
(add (zext (add nuw X, C1)), C2) -> (zext (add nuw X, C1+C2))
This is only possible if C2 is negative and C2 is greater than or equal to negative C1.
llvm-svn: 290927
This test was testing that we could correctly find the parent of a DIE, but it was actually just testing the special case where a DIE's depth was 1. This corrects that error by adding an extra level into the the DWARF to ensure that we correctly get the parent by looking for the parent with a depth that is 1 less than the current depth.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28261
llvm-svn: 290918
As per post-commit review for r289993 (D27775), we can only safely
import a type as a decl if it has an Identifier, as the Name alone
is not enough to be unique across modules.
llvm-svn: 290915
I'm not sure what determines the minor version, but it appears
that it's possible for a fully updated, release version of
VS2015 with Update 3 can go (at least) as low as 19.00.24213.1.
Updating the compiler version check to account for this so we
don't generate superfluous warnings.
llvm-svn: 290914
I wrote this patch before seeing the comment in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27114
...that suggests we should actually be canonicalizing the other way.
So just in case we decide this is the right way, we might as well
have a cleaner implementation.
llvm-svn: 290912
