Now that `Metadata` is typeless, reflect that in the assembly. These
are the matching assembly changes for the metadata/value split in
r223802.
- Only use the `metadata` type when referencing metadata from a call
intrinsic -- i.e., only when it's used as a `Value`.
- Stop pretending that `ValueAsMetadata` is wrapped in an `MDNode`
when referencing it from call intrinsics.
So, assembly like this:
define @foo(i32 %v) {
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{i32 %v}, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{i32 7}, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !1, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !3, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{metadata !3}, metadata !0)
ret void, !bar !2
}
!0 = metadata !{metadata !2}
!1 = metadata !{i32* @global}
!2 = metadata !{metadata !3}
!3 = metadata !{}
turns into this:
define @foo(i32 %v) {
call void @llvm.foo(metadata i32 %v, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata i32 7, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata i32* @global, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !3, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{!3}, metadata !0)
ret void, !bar !2
}
!0 = !{!2}
!1 = !{i32* @global}
!2 = !{!3}
!3 = !{}
I wrote an upgrade script that handled almost all of the tests in llvm
and many of the tests in cfe (even handling many `CHECK` lines). I've
attached it (or will attach it in a moment if you're speedy) to PR21532
to help everyone update their out-of-tree testcases.
This is part of PR21532.
llvm-svn: 224257
We were already requiring 2.5, which meant that people on old linux distros
had to upgrade anyway.
Requiring python 2.6 will make supporting 3.X easier as we can use the 3.X
exception syntax.
According to the discussion on llvmdev, there is not much value is requiring
just 2.6, we may as well just require 2.7.
llvm-svn: 224129
Introduce the ``llvm.instrprof_increment`` intrinsic and the
``-instrprof`` pass. These provide the infrastructure for writing
counters for profiling, as in clang's ``-fprofile-instr-generate``.
The implementation of the instrprof pass is ported directly out of the
CodeGenPGO classes in clang, and with the followup in clang that rips
that code out to use these new intrinsics this ends up being NFC.
Doing the instrumentation this way opens some doors in terms of
improving the counter performance. For example, this will make it
simple to experiment with alternate lowering strategies, and allows us
to try handling profiling specially in some optimizations if we want
to.
Finally, this drastically simplifies the frontend and puts all of the
lowering logic in one place.
llvm-svn: 223672
a description of how to add debug information using DWARF and
DIBuilder to the language.
Thanks to David Blaikie for his assistance with this tutorial.
llvm-svn: 223671
Patch by Ben Gamari!
This redefines the `prefix` attribute introduced previously and
introduces a `prologue` attribute. There are a two primary usecases
that these attributes aim to serve,
1. Function prologue sigils
2. Function hot-patching: Enable the user to insert `nop` operations
at the beginning of the function which can later be safely replaced
with a call to some instrumentation facility
3. Runtime metadata: Allow a compiler to insert data for use by the
runtime during execution. GHC is one example of a compiler that
needs this functionality for its tables-next-to-code functionality.
Previously `prefix` served cases (1) and (2) quite well by allowing the user
to introduce arbitrary data at the entrypoint but before the function
body. Case (3), however, was poorly handled by this approach as it
required that prefix data was valid executable code.
Here we redefine the notion of prefix data to instead be data which
occurs immediately before the function entrypoint (i.e. the symbol
address). Since prefix data now occurs before the function entrypoint,
there is no need for the data to be valid code.
The previous notion of prefix data now goes under the name "prologue
data" to emphasize its duality with the function epilogue.
The intention here is to handle cases (1) and (2) with prologue data and
case (3) with prefix data.
References
----------
This idea arose out of discussions[1] with Reid Kleckner in response to a
proposal to introduce the notion of symbol offsets to enable handling of
case (3).
[1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-May/073235.html
Test Plan: testsuite
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6454
llvm-svn: 223189
This is the fourth and final patch in the statepoint series. It contains the documentation for the statepoint intrinsics and their usage.
There's definitely still room to improve the documentation here, but I wanted to get this landed so it was available for others. There will likely be a series of small cleanup changes over the next few weeks as we work to clarify and revise the documentation. If you have comments or questions, please feel free to discuss them either in this commit thread, the original review thread, or on llvmdev. Comments are more than welcome.
Reviewed by: atrick, ributzka
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5683
llvm-svn: 223143
Clarify the wording around !invariant.load to properly reflect the semantics of such loads with respect to control dependence and location lifetime. To the best of my knowledge, the revised wording respects the actual implementation and understanding of issues involved highlighted in the recent 'Optimization hints for "constant" loads' thread on LLVMDev.
In particular, I'm aiming for the following results:
- To clarify that an invariant.load can fault and must respect control dependence. In particular, it is not sound to unconditionally pull an invariant load out of a loop if that loop would potentially never execute.
- To clarify that the invariant nature of a given pointer does not preclude the modification of that location through a pointer which is unrelated to the load operand. In particular, initializing a location and then passing a pointer through an opaque intrinsic which produces a new unrelated pointer, should behave as expected provided that the intrinsic is memory dependent on the initializing store.
- To clarify that storing a value to an invariant location is defined. It can not, for example, be considered unreachable. The value stored can be assumed to be equal to the value of any previous (or following!) invariant load, but the store itself is defined.
I recommend that anyone interested in using !invariant.load, or optimizing for them, read over the discussion in the review thread. A number of motivating examples are discussed.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6346
llvm-svn: 222700
The previous description of the noalias attribute did not accurately specify
the implemented semantics, and the terminology used differed unnecessarily
from that used by the C specification to define the semantics of restrict. For
the argument attribute, the semantics can be precisely specified in terms of
objects accessed through pointers based on the arguments, and this is now what
is done.
Saying that the semantics are 'slightly weaker' than that provided by C99
restrict is not really useful without further elaboration, so that has been
removed from the sentence.
noalias on a return value is really used to mean that the function is
malloc-like (and, in fact, we use this attribute to represent
__attribute__((malloc)) in Clang), and this is a stronger guarantee than that
provided by restrict (because it is a property of the pointed-to memory region,
not just a guarantee on object access). Clarifying this is relevant to fixing
(and was motivated by the discussion on) PR21556.
llvm-svn: 222497
This change makes use of the new "job pool" capability in cmake 3.0
with ninja generator to allow limiting the number of concurrent jobs
of a certain type.
llvm-svn: 222341
- Make CallGraphSCCPass's paragraph about doFinalization refer to
runOnSCC instead of runOnFunction, since that's what it's about.
- Fix a reference in the FunctionPass paragraph.
llvm-svn: 222222
The given example was overflowing its alloca and segfaulting if actually run on
x86, so it's a good idea to provide something that works there too.
Patch by Ramkumar Ramachandra.
llvm-svn: 221077
These are named following the IEEE-754 names for these
functions, rather than the libm fmin / fmax to avoid
possible ambiguities. Some languages may implement something
resembling fmin / fmax which return NaN if either operand is
to propagate errors. These implement the IEEE-754 semantics
of returning the other operand if either is a NaN representing
missing data.
llvm-svn: 220341
The newly introduced 'nonnull' metadata is analogous to existing 'nonnull' attributes, but applies to load instructions rather than call arguments or returns. Long term, it would be nice to combine these into a single construct. The value of the load is allowed to vary between successive loads, but null is not a valid value to be loaded by any load marked nonnull.
Reviewed by: Hal Finkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5220
llvm-svn: 220240
llvm-symbolizer will consult one of the .dSYM paths passed via -dsym-hint
if it fails to find the .dSYM bundle at the default location.
llvm-svn: 220004
Rather than define our own standards, we adopt a set of best practices that
are already in use by the Go community.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5761
llvm-svn: 219646
Summary:
We currently emit an DW_AT_APPLE_property_attribute with a value that is a
bitfield describing the various attributes applied to an ObjectiveC property.
While trying to add testing to one of my dwarfdump patches that would pretty
print that, I realized this information looks totally broken and has maybe
never been correct.
As with every DWARF info, we have some enum in Dwarf.h that describes this
attribute (enum ApplePropertyAttributes). It seems however that the attribute
value is set from another definition of these flags in Sema/DeclSpec.h (enum
ObjCPropertyAttributeKind). And these 2 enums aren't in sync.
This patch updates the Dwarf.h values to the ones we are (and have been for
a very long time) emitting. We change some publicly (and even documented
in SourceLevelDebugging.rst) values, but I doubt this could be an issue as
the information has been wrong for so long...
Reviewers: echristo, dblaikie, aprantl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5653
llvm-svn: 219311
