GEP index size can be specified in the DataLayout, introduced in D42123. However, there were still places
in which getIndexSizeInBits was used interchangeably with getPointerSizeInBits. This notably caused issues
with Instcombine's visitPtrToInt; but the unit tests was incorrect, so this remained undiscovered.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68328
Patch by Joseph Faulls!
This has two main effects:
- Optimizes debug info size by saving 221.86 MB of obj file size in a
Windows optimized+debug build of 'all'. This is 3.03% of 7,332.7MB of
object file size.
- Incremental step towards decoupling target intrinsics.
The enums are still compact, so adding and removing a single
target-specific intrinsic will trigger a rebuild of all of LLVM.
Assigning distinct target id spaces is potential future work.
Part of PR34259
Reviewers: efriedma, echristo, MaskRay
Reviewed By: echristo, MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71320
AggValueSlot
This reapplies 8a5b7c3570 after a null
dereference bug in CGOpenMPRuntime::emitUserDefinedMapper.
Original commit message:
This is needed for the pointer authentication work we plan to do in the
near future.
a63a81bd99/clang/docs/PointerAuthentication.rst
Summary: Fix PR43700
The ConstantEmitter in AggExprEmitter::EmitArrayInit was initialized
with the CodeGenFunction set to null, which caused the crash.
Also simplify another call, and make the CGF member a const pointer
since it is public but only assigned in the constructor.
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70302
Summary:
Implicit Conversion Sanitizer is *almost* feature complete.
There aren't *that* much unsanitized things left,
two major ones are increment/decrement (this patch) and bit fields.
As it was discussed in
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39519 | PR39519 ]],
unlike `CompoundAssignOperator` (which is promoted internally),
or `BinaryOperator` (for which we always have promotion/demotion in AST)
or parts of `UnaryOperator` (we have promotion/demotion but only for
certain operations), for inc/dec, clang omits promotion/demotion
altogether, under as-if rule.
This is technically correct: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/zPgD
As it can be seen in `InstCombineCasts.cpp` `canEvaluateTruncated()`,
`add`/`sub`/`mul`/`and`/`or`/`xor` operators can all arbitrarily
be extended or truncated:
901cd3b3f6/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineCasts.cpp (L1320-L1334)
But that has serious implications:
1. Since we no longer model implicit casts, do we pessimise
their AST representation and everything that uses it?
2. There is no demotion, so lossy demotion sanitizer does not trigger :]
Now, i'm not going to argue about the first problem here,
but the second one **needs** to be addressed. As it was stated
in the report, this is done intentionally, so changing
this in all modes would be considered a penalization/regression.
Which means, the sanitization-less codegen must not be altered.
It was also suggested to not change the sanitized codegen
to the one with demotion, but i quite strongly believe
that will not be the wise choice here:
1. One will need to re-engineer the check that the inc/dec was lossy
in terms of `@llvm.{u,s}{add,sub}.with.overflow` builtins
2. We will still need to compute the result we would lossily demote.
(i.e. the result of wide `add`ition/`sub`traction)
3. I suspect it would need to be done right here, in sanitization.
Which kinda defeats the point of
using `@llvm.{u,s}{add,sub}.with.overflow` builtins:
we'd have two `add`s with basically the same arguments,
one of which is used for check+error-less codepath and other one
for the error reporting. That seems worse than a single wide op+check.
4. OR, we would need to do that in the compiler-rt handler.
Which means we'll need a whole new handler.
But then what about the `CompoundAssignOperator`,
it would also be applicable for it.
So this also doesn't really seem like the right path to me.
5. At least X86 (but likely others) pessimizes all sub-`i32` operations
(due to partial register stalls), so even if we avoid promotion+demotion,
the computations will //likely// be performed in `i32` anyways.
So i'm not really seeing much benefit of
not doing the straight-forward thing.
While looking into this, i have noticed a few more LLVM middle-end
missed canonicalizations, and filed
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44100 | PR44100 ]],
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44102 | PR44102 ]].
Those are not specific to inc/dec, we also have them for
`CompoundAssignOperator`, and it can happen for normal arithmetics, too.
But if we take some other path in the patch, it will not be applicable
here, and we will have most likely played ourselves.
TLDR: front-end should emit canonical, easy-to-optimize yet
un-optimized code. It is middle-end's job to make it optimal.
I'm really hoping reviewers agree with my personal assessment
of the path this patch should take..
This originally landed in 9872ea4ed1
but got immediately reverted in cbfa237892
because the assertion was faulty. That fault ended up being caused
by the enum - while there will be promotion, both types are unsigned,
with same width. So we still don't need to sanitize non-signed cases.
So far. Maybe the assert will tell us this isn't so.
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44054 | PR44054 ]].
Refs. https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940
Reviewers: rjmccall, erichkeane, rsmith, vsk
Reviewed By: erichkeane
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, dexonsmith, cfe-commits, #sanitizers, llvm-commits, aaron.ballman, t.p.northover, efriedma, regehr
Tags: #llvm, #clang, #sanitizers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70539
The asssertion that was added does not hold,
breaks on test-suite/MultiSource/Applications/SPASS/analyze.c
Will reduce the testcase and revisit.
This reverts commit 9872ea4ed1, 870f3542d3.
Summary:
Implicit Conversion Sanitizer is *almost* feature complete.
There aren't *that* much unsanitized things left,
two major ones are increment/decrement (this patch) and bit fields.
As it was discussed in
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39519 | PR39519 ]],
unlike `CompoundAssignOperator` (which is promoted internally),
or `BinaryOperator` (for which we always have promotion/demotion in AST)
or parts of `UnaryOperator` (we have promotion/demotion but only for
certain operations), for inc/dec, clang omits promotion/demotion
altogether, under as-if rule.
This is technically correct: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/zPgD
As it can be seen in `InstCombineCasts.cpp` `canEvaluateTruncated()`,
`add`/`sub`/`mul`/`and`/`or`/`xor` operators can all arbitrarily
be extended or truncated:
901cd3b3f6/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineCasts.cpp (L1320-L1334)
But that has serious implications:
1. Since we no longer model implicit casts, do we pessimise
their AST representation and everything that uses it?
2. There is no demotion, so lossy demotion sanitizer does not trigger :]
Now, i'm not going to argue about the first problem here,
but the second one **needs** to be addressed. As it was stated
in the report, this is done intentionally, so changing
this in all modes would be considered a penalization/regression.
Which means, the sanitization-less codegen must not be altered.
It was also suggested to not change the sanitized codegen
to the one with demotion, but i quite strongly believe
that will not be the wise choice here:
1. One will need to re-engineer the check that the inc/dec was lossy
in terms of `@llvm.{u,s}{add,sub}.with.overflow` builtins
2. We will still need to compute the result we would lossily demote.
(i.e. the result of wide `add`ition/`sub`traction)
3. I suspect it would need to be done right here, in sanitization.
Which kinda defeats the point of
using `@llvm.{u,s}{add,sub}.with.overflow` builtins:
we'd have two `add`s with basically the same arguments,
one of which is used for check+error-less codepath and other one
for the error reporting. That seems worse than a single wide op+check.
4. OR, we would need to do that in the compiler-rt handler.
Which means we'll need a whole new handler.
But then what about the `CompoundAssignOperator`,
it would also be applicable for it.
So this also doesn't really seem like the right path to me.
5. At least X86 (but likely others) pessimizes all sub-`i32` operations
(due to partial register stalls), so even if we avoid promotion+demotion,
the computations will //likely// be performed in `i32` anyways.
So i'm not really seeing much benefit of
not doing the straight-forward thing.
While looking into this, i have noticed a few more LLVM middle-end
missed canonicalizations, and filed
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44100 | PR44100 ]],
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44102 | PR44102 ]].
Those are not specific to inc/dec, we also have them for
`CompoundAssignOperator`, and it can happen for normal arithmetics, too.
But if we take some other path in the patch, it will not be applicable
here, and we will have most likely played ourselves.
TLDR: front-end should emit canonical, easy-to-optimize yet
un-optimized code. It is middle-end's job to make it optimal.
I'm really hoping reviewers agree with my personal assessment
of the path this patch should take..
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44054 | PR44054 ]].
Reviewers: rjmccall, erichkeane, rsmith, vsk
Reviewed By: erichkeane
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, dexonsmith, cfe-commits, #sanitizers, llvm-commits, aaron.ballman, t.p.northover, efriedma, regehr
Tags: #llvm, #clang, #sanitizers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70539
Atomic compound expressions try to use atomicrmw if possible, but this
path doesn't set the Result variable, leaving it to crash in later code
if anything ever tries to use the result of the expression. This fixes
that issue by recalculating the new value based on the old one
atomically loaded.
Part of C++20 Concepts implementation effort. Added Concept Specialization Expressions that are created when a concept is refe$
D41217 on Phabricator.
(recommit after fixing failing Parser test on windows)
llvm-svn: 374903
Part of C++20 Concepts implementation effort. Added Concept Specialization Expressions that are created when a concept is referenced with arguments, and tests thereof.
llvm-svn: 374882
The behavior from the original patch has changed, since we're no longer
allowing LLVM to just ignore the alignment. Instead, we're just
assuming the maximum possible alignment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68824
llvm-svn: 374562
The test fails on Windows, with
error: 'warning' diagnostics expected but not seen:
File builtin-assume-aligned.c Line 62: requested alignment
must be 268435456 bytes or smaller; assumption ignored
error: 'warning' diagnostics seen but not expected:
File builtin-assume-aligned.c Line 62: requested alignment
must be 8192 bytes or smaller; assumption ignored
llvm-svn: 374456
Code to handle __builtin_assume_aligned was allowing larger values, but
would convert this to unsigned along the way. This patch removes the
EmitAssumeAligned overloads that take unsigned to do away with this
problem.
Additionally, it adds a warning that values greater than 1 <<29 are
ignored by LLVM.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68824
llvm-svn: 374450
Summary:
Quote from http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.add#4:
```
4 When an expression J that has integral type is added to or subtracted
from an expression P of pointer type, the result has the type of P.
(4.1) If P evaluates to a null pointer value and J evaluates to 0,
the result is a null pointer value.
(4.2) Otherwise, if P points to an array element i of an array object x with n
elements ([dcl.array]), the expressions P + J and J + P
(where J has the value j) point to the (possibly-hypothetical) array
element i+j of x if 0≤i+j≤n and the expression P - J points to the
(possibly-hypothetical) array element i−j of x if 0≤i−j≤n.
(4.3) Otherwise, the behavior is undefined.
```
Therefore, as per the standard, applying non-zero offset to `nullptr`
(or making non-`nullptr` a `nullptr`, by subtracting pointer's integral value
from the pointer itself) is undefined behavior. (*if* `nullptr` is not defined,
i.e. e.g. `-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks` was *not* specified.)
To make things more fun, in C (6.5.6p8), applying *any* offset to null pointer
is undefined, although Clang front-end pessimizes the code by not lowering
that info, so this UB is "harmless".
Since rL369789 (D66608 `[InstCombine] icmp eq/ne (gep inbounds P, Idx..), null -> icmp eq/ne P, null`)
LLVM middle-end uses those guarantees for transformations.
If the source contains such UB's, said code may now be miscompiled.
Such miscompilations were already observed:
* https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20190826/687838.html
* https://github.com/google/filament/pull/1566
Surprisingly, UBSan does not catch those issues
... until now. This diff teaches UBSan about these UB's.
`getelementpointer inbounds` is a pretty frequent instruction,
so this does have a measurable impact on performance;
I've addressed most of the obvious missing folds (and thus decreased the performance impact by ~5%),
and then re-performed some performance measurements using my [[ https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed | RawSpeed ]] benchmark:
(all measurements done with LLVM ToT, the sanitizer never fired.)
* no sanitization vs. existing check: average `+21.62%` slowdown
* existing check vs. check after this patch: average `22.04%` slowdown
* no sanitization vs. this patch: average `48.42%` slowdown
Reviewers: vsk, filcab, rsmith, aaron.ballman, vitalybuka, rjmccall, #sanitizers
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, nickdesaulniers, nikic, ychen, dtzWill, xbolva00, dberris, arphaman, rupprecht, reames, regehr, llvm-commits, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang, #sanitizers, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67122
llvm-svn: 374293
The static analyzer is warning about potential null dereferences, but in these cases we should be able to use castAs<RecordType> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373584
The static analyzer is warning about potential null dereferences, but in these cases we should be able to use castAs<VectorType> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373478
It shouldn't really be inlined into the EmitCheckedInBoundsGEP().
Refactoring it beforehand will make follow-up changes more obvious.
This was originally part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D67122
llvm-svn: 371207
Summary:
Prior to r329065, we used [-max, max] as the range of representable
values because LLVM's `fptrunc` did not guarantee defined behavior when
truncating from a larger floating-point type to a smaller one. Now that
has been fixed, we can make clang follow normal IEEE 754 semantics in this
regard and take the larger range [-inf, +inf] as the range of representable
values.
In practice, this affects two parts of the frontend:
* the constant evaluator no longer treats floating-point evaluations
that result in +-inf as being undefined (because they no longer leave
the range of representable values of the type)
* UBSan no longer treats conversions to floating-point type that are
outside the [-max, +max] range as being undefined
In passing, also remove the float-divide-by-zero sanitizer from
-fsanitize=undefined, on the basis that while it's undefined per C++
rules (and we disallow it in constant expressions for that reason), it
is defined by Clang / LLVM / IEEE 754.
Reviewers: rnk, BillyONeal
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63793
llvm-svn: 365272
This commit adds a new builtin, __builtin_bit_cast(T, v), which performs a
bit_cast from a value v to a type T. This expression can be evaluated at
compile time under specific circumstances.
The compile time evaluation currently doesn't support bit-fields, but I'm
planning on fixing this in a follow up (some of the logic for figuring this out
is in CodeGen). I'm also planning follow-ups for supporting some more esoteric
types that the constexpr evaluator supports, as well as extending
__builtin_memcpy constexpr evaluation to use the same infrastructure.
rdar://44987528
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62825
llvm-svn: 364954
nullptr_t does not access memory.
We now reuse CK_NullToPointer to represent a conversion from a glvalue
of type nullptr_t to a prvalue of nullptr_t where necessary.
This reinstates r363337, reverted in r363352.
llvm-svn: 363429
Revert 363340 "Remove unused SK_LValueToRValue initialization step."
Revert 363337 "PR23833, DR2140: an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on a glvalue of type"
Revert 363295 "C++ DR712 and others: handle non-odr-use resulting from an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion applied to a member access or similar not-quite-trivial lvalue expression."
llvm-svn: 363352
nullptr_t does not access memory.
We now reuse CK_NullToPointer to represent a conversion from a glvalue
of type nullptr_t to a prvalue of nullptr_t where necessary.
This reinstates r345562, reverted in r346065, now that CodeGen's
handling of non-odr-used variables has been fixed.
llvm-svn: 363337
Summary:
This patch implements the source location builtins `__builtin_LINE(), `__builtin_FUNCTION()`, `__builtin_FILE()` and `__builtin_COLUMN()`. These builtins are needed to implement [`std::experimental::source_location`](https://rawgit.com/cplusplus/fundamentals-ts/v2/main.html#reflection.src_loc.creation).
With the exception of `__builtin_COLUMN`, GCC also implements these builtins, and Clangs behavior is intended to match as closely as possible.
Reviewers: rsmith, joerg, aaron.ballman, bogner, majnemer, shafik, martong
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: rnkovacs, loskutov, riccibruno, mgorny, kunitoki, alexr, majnemer, hfinkel, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37035
llvm-svn: 360937
This patch includes the necessary code for converting between a fixed point type and integer.
This also includes constant expression evaluation for conversions with these types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56900
llvm-svn: 355462
I think the author of the function assumed that `GetInsertBlock()`
wouldn't change from where `atomicPHI` was created, but this isn't
true when `-fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow` is enabled (we
generate an overflow/continuation label). Fix by keeping track of the
block we want to return to to complete the cmpxchg loop.
rdar://48406558
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58744
llvm-svn: 355054
This patch implements fixed point comparisons with other fixed point types and
integers. This also provides constant expression evaluation for them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57219
llvm-svn: 354621
Emit{Nounwind,}RuntimeCall{,OrInvoke} have been modified to take a
FunctionCallee as an argument, and CreateRuntimeFunction has been
modified to return a FunctionCallee. All callers have been updated.
Additionally, CreateBuiltinFunction is removed, as it was redundant
with CreateRuntimeFunction after some previous changes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57668
llvm-svn: 353184
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
This patch covers subtraction between fixed point types and other fixed point
types or integers, using the conversion rules described in 4.1.4 of N1169.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55844
llvm-svn: 351371
This patch covers addition between fixed point types and other fixed point
types or integers, using the conversion rules described in 4.1.4 of N1169.
Usual arithmetic rules do not apply to binary operations when one of the
operands is a fixed point type, and the result of the operation must be
calculated with the full precision of the operands, so we should not perform
any casting to a common type.
This patch does not include constant expression evaluation for addition of
fixed point types. That will be addressed in another patch since I think this
one is already big enough.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53738
llvm-svn: 351364
Summary:
UB isn't nice. It's cool and powerful, but not nice.
Having a way to detect it is nice though.
[[ https://wg21.link/p1007r3 | P1007R3: std::assume_aligned ]] / http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1007r2.pdf says:
```
We propose to add this functionality via a library function instead of a core language attribute.
...
If the pointer passed in is not aligned to at least N bytes, calling assume_aligned results in undefined behaviour.
```
This differential teaches clang to sanitize all the various variants of this assume-aligned attribute.
Requires D54588 for LLVM IRBuilder changes.
The compiler-rt part is D54590.
This is a second commit, the original one was r351105,
which was mass-reverted in r351159 because 2 compiler-rt tests were failing.
Reviewers: ABataev, craig.topper, vsk, rsmith, rnk, #sanitizers, erichkeane, filcab, rjmccall
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Subscribers: chandlerc, ldionne, EricWF, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, bkramer
Tags: #sanitizers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54589
llvm-svn: 351177
Summary:
UB isn't nice. It's cool and powerful, but not nice.
Having a way to detect it is nice though.
[[ https://wg21.link/p1007r3 | P1007R3: std::assume_aligned ]] / http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1007r2.pdf says:
```
We propose to add this functionality via a library function instead of a core language attribute.
...
If the pointer passed in is not aligned to at least N bytes, calling assume_aligned results in undefined behaviour.
```
This differential teaches clang to sanitize all the various variants of this assume-aligned attribute.
Requires D54588 for LLVM IRBuilder changes.
The compiler-rt part is D54590.
Reviewers: ABataev, craig.topper, vsk, rsmith, rnk, #sanitizers, erichkeane, filcab, rjmccall
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Subscribers: chandlerc, ldionne, EricWF, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, bkramer
Tags: #sanitizers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54589
llvm-svn: 351105
