Aliases are just another name for a position in a file. As such, the
regular symbol resolutions are not applied. For example, given
define void @my_func() {
ret void
}
@my_alias = alias weak void ()* @my_func
@my_alias2 = alias void ()* @my_alias
We produce without this patch:
.weak my_alias
my_alias = my_func
.globl my_alias2
my_alias2 = my_alias
That is, in the resulting ELF file my_alias, my_func and my_alias are
just 3 names pointing to offset 0 of .text. That is *not* the
semantics of IR linking. For example, linking in a
@my_alias = alias void ()* @other_func
would require the strong my_alias to override the weak one and
my_alias2 would end up pointing to other_func.
There is no way to represent that with aliases being just another
name, so the best solution seems to be to just disallow it, converting
a miscompile into an error.
llvm-svn: 204781
never returns, which is true by design.
Initially assumed that the reason is llvm_unreachable being dependent on NDEBUG.
However, even if llvm_unreachable is replaced by __assume(false), VC still warns in
Release modes but not in Debug modes...
The real reason turned out to be optimization flags.
With /Od in Debug modes the warning is not issued whereas with /O1 it is.
I could not find any documentation to this effect, but it is reproducable:
Try compiling http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/khwfyc5d(v=vs.90).aspx
with /O1 and then with /Od.
llvm-svn: 204659
This allows us to catch more opportunities for ODR-based type uniquing
during LTO.
Paired commit with CFE which updates some testcases to verify the new
DIBuilder behavior.
llvm-svn: 204106
Summary:
The sample profiler pass emits several error messages. Instead of
just aborting the compiler with report_fatal_error, we can emit
better messages using DiagnosticInfo.
This adds a new sub-class of DiagnosticInfo to handle the sample
profiler.
Reviewers: chandlerc, qcolombet
CC: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3086
llvm-svn: 203976
These linkages were introduced some time ago, but it was never very
clear what exactly their semantics were or what they should be used
for. Some investigation found these uses:
* utf-16 strings in clang.
* non-unnamed_addr strings produced by the sanitizers.
It turns out they were just working around a more fundamental problem.
For some sections a MachO linker needs a symbol in order to split the
section into atoms, and llvm had no idea that was the case. I fixed
that in r201700 and it is now safe to use the private linkage. When
the object ends up in a section that requires symbols, llvm will use a
'l' prefix instead of a 'L' prefix and things just work.
With that, these linkages were already dead, but there was a potential
future user in the objc metadata information. I am still looking at
CGObjcMac.cpp, but at this point I am convinced that linker_private
and linker_private_weak are not what they need.
The objc uses are currently split in
* Regular symbols (no '\01' prefix). LLVM already directly provides
whatever semantics they need.
* Uses of a private name (start with "\01L" or "\01l") and private
linkage. We can drop the "\01L" and "\01l" prefixes as soon as llvm
agrees with clang on L being ok or not for a given section. I have two
patches in code review for this.
* Uses of private name and weak linkage.
The last case is the one that one could think would fit one of these
linkages. That is not the case. The semantics are
* the linker will merge these symbol by *name*.
* the linker will hide them in the final DSO.
Given that the merging is done by name, any of the private (or
internal) linkages would be a bad match. They allow llvm to rename the
symbols, and that is really not what we want. From the llvm point of
view, these objects should really be (linkonce|weak)(_odr)?.
For now, just keeping the "\01l" prefix is probably the best for these
symbols. If we one day want to have a more direct support in llvm,
IMHO what we should add is not a linkage, it is just a hidden_symbol
attribute. It would be applicable to multiple linkages. For example,
on weak it would produce the current behavior we have for objc
metadata. On internal, it would be equivalent to private (and we
should then remove private).
llvm-svn: 203866
convenient it is to imagine a world where this works, that is not C++ as
was pointed out in review. The standard even goes to some lengths to
preclude any attempt at this, for better or worse. Maybe better. =]
llvm-svn: 203775
On ELF and COFF an alias is just another name for a position in the file.
There is no way to refer to a position in another file, so an alias to
undefined is meaningless.
MachO currently doesn't support aliases. The spec has a N_INDR, which when
implemented will have a different set of restrictions. Adding support for
it shouldn't be harder than any other IR extension.
For now, having the IR represent what is actually possible with current
tools makes it easier to fix the design of GlobalAlias.
llvm-svn: 203705
The syntax for "cmpxchg" should now look something like:
cmpxchg i32* %addr, i32 42, i32 3 acquire monotonic
where the second ordering argument gives the required semantics in the case
that no exchange takes place. It should be no stronger than the first ordering
constraint and cannot be either "release" or "acq_rel" (since no store will
have taken place).
rdar://problem/15996804
llvm-svn: 203559
During LTO, user-supplied definitions of C library functions often
exist. -instcombine uses Module::getOrInsertFunction() to get a handle
on library functions (e.g., @puts, when optimizing @printf).
Previously, Module::getOrInsertFunction() would rename any matching
functions with local linkage, and create a new declaration. In LTO,
this is the opposite of desired behaviour, as it skips by the
user-supplied version of the library function and creates a new
undefined reference which the linker often cannot resolve.
After some discussing with Rafael on the list, it looks like it's
undesired behaviour. If a consumer actually *needs* this behaviour, we
should add new API with a more explicit name.
I added two testcases: one specifically for the -instcombine behaviour
and one for the LTO flow.
<rdar://problem/16165191>
llvm-svn: 203513
Extend the error message generated by the Verifier when an intrinsic
name does not match the expected mangling to include the expected
name. Simplifies debugging.
Patch by Philip Reames!
llvm-svn: 203490
optimize a call to a llvm intrinsic to something that invovles a call to a C
library call, make sure it sets the right calling convention on the call.
e.g.
extern double pow(double, double);
double t(double x) {
return pow(10, x);
}
Compiles to something like this for AAPCS-VFP:
define arm_aapcs_vfpcc double @t(double %x) #0 {
entry:
%0 = call double @llvm.pow.f64(double 1.000000e+01, double %x)
ret double %0
}
declare double @llvm.pow.f64(double, double) #1
Simplify libcall (part of instcombine) will turn the above into:
define arm_aapcs_vfpcc double @t(double %x) #0 {
entry:
%__exp10 = call double @__exp10(double %x) #1
ret double %__exp10
}
declare double @__exp10(double)
The pre-instcombine code works because calls to LLVM builtins are special.
Instruction selection will chose the right calling convention for the call.
However, the code after instcombine is wrong. The call to __exp10 will use
the C calling convention.
I can think of 3 options to fix this.
1. Make "C" calling convention just work since the target should know what CC
is being used.
This doesn't work because each function can use different CC with the "pcs"
attribute.
2. Have Clang add the right CC keyword on the calls to LLVM builtin.
This will work but it doesn't match the LLVM IR specification which states
these are "Standard C Library Intrinsics".
3. Fix simplify libcall so the resulting calls to the C routines will have the
proper CC keyword. e.g.
%__exp10 = call arm_aapcs_vfpcc double @__exp10(double %x) #1
This works and is the solution I implemented here.
Both solutions #2 and #3 would work. After carefully considering the pros and
cons, I decided to implement #3 for the following reasons.
1. It doesn't change the "spec" of the intrinsics.
2. It's a self-contained fix.
There are a couple of potential downsides.
1. There could be other places in the optimizer that is broken in the same way
that's not addressed by this.
2. There could be other calling conventions that need to be propagated by
simplify-libcall that's not handled.
But for now, this is the fix that I'm most comfortable with.
llvm-svn: 203488
it is available. Also make the move semantics sufficiently correct to
tolerate move-only passes, as the PassManagers *are* move-only passes.
llvm-svn: 203391
The grammar for LLVM IR is not well specified in any document but seems
to obey the following rules:
- Attributes which have parenthesized arguments are never preceded by
commas. This form of attribute is the only one which ever has
optional arguments. However, not all of these attributes support
optional arguments: 'thread_local' supports an optional argument but
'addrspace' does not. Interestingly, 'addrspace' is documented as
being a "qualifier". What constitutes a qualifier? I cannot find a
definition.
- Some attributes use a space between the keyword and the value.
Examples of this form are 'align' and 'section'. These are always
preceded by a comma.
- Otherwise, the attribute has no argument. These attributes do not
have a preceding comma.
Sometimes an attribute goes before the instruction, between the
instruction and it's type, or after it's type. 'atomicrmw' has
'volatile' between the instruction and the type while 'call' has 'tail'
preceding the instruction.
With all this in mind, it seems most consistent for 'inalloca' on an
'inalloca' instruction to occur before between the instruction and the
type. Unlike the current formulation, there would be no preceding
comma. The combination 'alloca inalloca' doesn't look particularly
appetizing, perhaps a better spelling of 'inalloca' is down the road.
llvm-svn: 203376
MSVC (2012, 2013, 2013 Nov CTP) fail on the following code:
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2};
for (int i : arr)
do {} while (0);
}
The fix is to put {} around the for loop. I've reported this to the MSVC
team.
llvm-svn: 203371
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
This compiles with no changes to clang/lld/lldb with MSVC and includes
overloads to various functions which are used by those projects and llvm
which have OwningPtr's as parameters. This should allow out of tree
projects some time to move. There are also no changes to libs/Target,
which should help out of tree targets have time to move, if necessary.
llvm-svn: 203083
implementation already lived.
After this commit, the only IR-library headers in include/llvm/* are
ones related to the legacy pass infrastructure that I'm planning to
leave there until the new one is farther along.
The only other headers at the top level are linking and initialization
aids that aren't really libraries but just headers.
llvm-svn: 203069
already lived there and it is where it belongs -- this is the in-memory
debug location representation.
This is just cleanup -- Modules can actually cope with this, but that
doesn't make it right. After chatting with folks that have out-of-tree
stuff, going ahead and moving the rest of the headers seems preferable.
llvm-svn: 202960
source file had already been moved. Also move the unittest into the IR
unittest library.
This may seem an odd thing to put in the IR library but we only really
use this with instructions and it needs the LLVM context to work, so it
is intrinsically tied to the IR library.
llvm-svn: 202842
a bit surprising, as the class is almost entirely abstracted away from
any particular IR, however it encodes the comparsion predicates which
mutate ranges as ICmp predicate codes. This is reasonable as they're
used for both instructions and constants. Thus, it belongs in the IR
library with instructions and constants.
llvm-svn: 202838
Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.
This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.
llvm-svn: 202821
name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
business.
This header includes Function and BasicBlock and directly uses the
interfaces of both classes. It has to do with the IR, it even has that
in the name. =] Put it in the library it belongs to.
This is one step toward making LLVM's Support library survive a C++
modules bootstrap.
llvm-svn: 202814
out-of-line so that it can refer to the methods on User. As
a consequence, this removes the need to define one template method if
value_use_iterator in the extremely strange User.h header (!!!).
This makse Use.h slightly less peculiar. The only remaining real
peculiarity is the definition of Use::set in Value.h
llvm-svn: 202805
