This has been found while trying to remove the last few places relying on `unsigned` to convey alignment operations.
This seems to be untested.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138784
llvm.coro.begin
Previously we've taken care of the writes to allocas prior to llvm.coro.begin.
However, since the promise alloca is special so that we never handled it
before. For the long time, since the programmers can't access the
promise_type due to the c++ language specification, we still failed to
recognize the problem until a recent report:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57861
And we've tested many codes that the problem gone away after we handle
the writes to the promise alloca prior to @llvm.coro.begin()
prope until a recent report:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57861
And we've tested many codes that the problem gone away after we handle
the writes to the promise alloca prior to @llvm.coro.begin() properly.
Closes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57861
Same as for async-style lowering, if there are no resume points in a
function, the coroutine frame pointer will be replaced by an undef,
making all accesses to the frame undefinde behavior.
Fix this by not adding allocas to the coroutine frame if there are no
resume points.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D137866
This switches everything to use the memory attribute proposed in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-unify-memory-effect-attributes/65579.
The old argmemonly, inaccessiblememonly and inaccessiblemem_or_argmemonly
attributes are dropped. The readnone, readonly and writeonly attributes
are restricted to parameters only.
The old attributes are auto-upgraded both in bitcode and IR.
The bitcode upgrade is a policy requirement that has to be retained
indefinitely. The IR upgrade is mainly there so it's not necessary
to update all tests using memory attributes in this patch, which
is already large enough. We could drop that part after migrating
tests, or retain it longer term, to make it easier to import IR
from older LLVM versions.
High-level Function/CallBase APIs like doesNotAccessMemory() or
setDoesNotAccessMemory() are mapped transparently to the memory
attribute. Code that directly manipulates attributes (e.g. via
AttributeList) on the other hand needs to switch to working with
the memory attribute instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135780
Another alternative to fix the thread identification problem in
coroutines.
We plan to fix this problem by unifying memory effecting attributes. See
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-unify-memory-effect-attributes/65579.
But it may be a long-term project. And it is a pity that the coroutines
can't resume in different threads for years. So this one is temporary
fix. It may cause unnecessary performance regression for coroutines. But
correctness are more important. And this one is planned to be reverted
after we are able to unify the memory effecting attributes actually.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert, rjmccall
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135550
Revert rGef89409a59f3b79ae143b33b7d8e6ee6285aa42f "Fix 'unused-lambda-capture' gcc warning. NFCI."
Revert rG926ccfef032d206dcbcdf74ca1e3a9ebf4d1be45 "[SLP] ScalarizationOverheadBuilder - demand all elements for scalarization if the extraction index is unknown / out of bounds"
Revert ScalarizationOverheadBuilder sequence from D134605 - when accumulating extraction costs by Type (instead of specific Value), we are not distinguishing enough when they are coming from the same source or not, and we always just count the cost once. This needs addressing before we can use getScalarizationOverhead properly.
Instead of accumulating all extraction costs separately and then adjusting for repeated subvector extractions, this patch collects all the extractions and then converts to calls to getScalarizationOverhead to improve the accuracy of the costs.
I'm not entirely satisfied with the getExtractWithExtendCost handling yet - this still just adds all the getExtractWithExtendCost costs together - it really needs to be replaced with a "getScalarizationOverheadWithExtend", but that will require further refactoring first.
This replaces my initial attempt in D124769.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134605
With this commit, we now attach an `DISubprogram` to the LLVM-generated
`_NoopCoro_ResumeDestroy` function. Thereby, lldb can show a
`std::coroutine_handle` to a `std::noop_coroutine` as
```
continuation = coro frame = 0x555555560d98 {
resume = 0x0000555555555c50 (a.out`__NoopCoro_ResumeDestroy)
destroy = 0x0000555555555c50 (a.out`__NoopCoro_ResumeDestroy)
}
```
instead of
```
continuation = coro frame = 0x555555560d98 {
resume = 0x0000555555555c50 (a.out`___lldb_unnamed_symbol211)
destroy = 0x0000555555555c50 (a.out`___lldb_unnamed_symbol211)
}
```
I renamed the function from `NoopCoro.ResumeDestroy` to
`_NoopCoro_ResumeDestroy` because:
* the leading `_` makes sure this is a reserved name and should not
clash with any user-provided names
* the `.` was replaced by a `_`, so the name is now a valid identifier
in C, making it allows me to type its name in the debugger
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132580
Closing https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57339
The root cause for this issue is an pre-mature optimization to eliminate
the index for the final suspend point since we feel like we can judge
if a coroutine is suspended at the final suspend by if resume_fn_addr is
null. However this is not true if the coroutine exists via an exception
in promise.unhandled_exception(). According to
[dcl.fct.def.coroutine]p14:
> If the evaluation of the expression promise.unhandled_exception()
> exits via an exception, the coroutine is considered suspended at the
> final suspend point.
But from the perspective of the implementation, we can't set the coro
index to the final suspend point directly since it breaks the states.
To fix the issue, we block the optimization if we find there is any
unwind coro end, which indicates that it is possible that the coroutine
exists via an exception from promise.unhandled_exception().
Test Plan: folly
Closing https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56329
The problem happens when we try to simplify the suspend points. We might
break the assumption that the final suspend lives in the last slot of
Shape.CoroSuspends. This patch tries to main the assumption and fixes
the problem.
Coroutine splitting is not possible if the one-to-one mapping between the two is
lost. Every suspend point must have a matching continuation function
pointer.
rdar://98404664
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131684
Closing https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56919
It is meaningless to preserve the lifetime markers for the spilled
allocas in the coroutine frames and it would block some optimizations
too.
As my goal is to remove at least _some_ functions from the static list
in MemoryBuiltins.cpp, these tests either need to run inferattrs or
statically declare these attributes to keep passing. A couple of tests
had alternate cases which are no longer meaningful, e.g.
`malloc-load-removal.ll`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123087
We call tail-call-elim near the beginning of the pipeline,
but that is too early to annotate calls that get added later.
In the motivating case from issue #47852, the missing 'tail'
on memset leads to sub-optimal codegen.
I experimented with removing the early instance of
tail-call-elim instead of just adding another pass, but that
appears to be slightly worse for compile-time:
+0.15% vs. +0.08% time.
"tailcall" shows adding the pass; "tailcall2" shows moving
the pass to later, then adding the original early pass back
(so 1596886802 is functionally equivalent to 180b0439dc ):
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/index.php?config=NewPM-O3&stat=instructions&remote=rotateright
Note that there was an effort to split the tail call functionality
into 2 passes - that could help reduce compile-time if we find
that this change costs more in compile-time than expected based
on the preliminary testing:
D60031
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130374
An async suspend models the split between two partial async functions.
`llvm.swift.async.context.addr ` will have a different value in the two
partial functions so it is not correct to generally CSE the instruction.
rdar://97336162
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130201
When F calls G calls H, G is nounwind, and G is inlined into F, then the
inlined call-site to H should be effectively nounwind so as not to lose
information during inlining.
If H itself is nounwind (which often happens when H is an intrinsic), we
no longer mark the callsite explicitly as nounwind. Previously, there
were cases where the inlined call-site of H differs from a pre-existing
call-site of H in F *only* in the explicitly added nounwind attribute,
thus preventing common subexpression elimination.
v2:
- just check CI->doesNotThrow
v3 (resubmit after revert at 3443788087):
- update Clang tests
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129860
To solve the readnone problems in coroutines. See
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/address-thread-identification-problems-with-coroutine/62015
for details.
According to the discussion, we decide to fix the problem by inserting
isPresplitCoroutine() checks in different passes instead of
wrapping/unwrapping readnone attributes in CoroEarly/CoroCleanup passes.
In this direction, we might not be able to cover every case at first.
Let's take a "find and fix" strategy.
Reviewed By: nikic, nhaehnle, jyknight
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127383
When F calls G calls H, G is nounwind, and G is inlined into F, then the
inlined call-site to H should be effectively nounwind so as not to lose
information during inlining.
If H itself is nounwind (which often happens when H is an intrinsic), we
no longer mark the callsite explicitly as nounwind. Previously, there
were cases where the inlined call-site of H differs from a pre-existing
call-site of H in F *only* in the explicitly added nounwind attribute,
thus preventing common subexpression elimination.
v2:
- just check CI->doesNotThrow
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129860
If DISubpogram was not cloned (e.g. we are cloning a function that has other
functions inlined into it, and subprograms of the inlined functions are
not supposed to be cloned), it doesn't make sense to clone its DILexicalBlocks
as well. Otherwise we'll get duplicated DILexicalBlocks that may confuse
debug info emission in AsmPrinter.
I believe it also makes no sense cloning any DILocalVariables or maybe
other local entities, if their parent subprogram was not cloned, cause
they will be dangling and will not participate in futher emission.
Reviewed By: aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127102
Following some recent discussions, this changes the representation
of callbrs in IR. The current blockaddress arguments are replaced
with `!` label constraints that refer directly to callbr indirect
destinations:
; Before:
%res = callbr i8* asm "", "=r,r,i"(i8* %x, i8* blockaddress(@test8, %foo))
to label %asm.fallthrough [label %foo]
; After:
%res = callbr i8* asm "", "=r,r,!i"(i8* %x)
to label %asm.fallthrough [label %foo]
The benefit of this is that we can easily update the successors of
a callbr, without having to worry about also updating blockaddress
references. This should allow us to remove some limitations:
* Allow unrolling/peeling/rotation of callbr, or any other
clone-based optimizations
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/41834)
* Allow duplicate successors
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/45248)
This is just the IR representation change though, I will follow up
with patches to remove limtations in various transformation passes
that are no longer needed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129288
It is illegal to merge two `llvm.coro.save` calls unless their
`llvm.coro.suspend` users are also merged. Marks it "nomerge" for
the moment.
This reverts D129025.
Alternative to D129025, which affects other token type users like WinEH.
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129530
Previously the scope of debug type of __coro_frame is limited in the
current function. It looked good at the first sight. But it prevent us
to print the type in splitted functions and other functions. Also the
debug type is different for different coroutine functions. So it makes
sense to rename the debug type to make it related to the function name.
After this patch, we could access the coroutine frame type in a function
by `function_name.coro_frame_ty`.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127623
enabled
The C++20 Coroutines couldn't be compiled to WebAssembly due to an
optimization named symmetric transfer requires the support for musttail
calls but WebAssembly doesn't support it yet.
This patch tries to fix the problem by adding a supportsTailCalls
method to TargetTransformImpl to skip the symmetric transfer when
tail-call feature is not supported.
Reviewed By: tlively
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128794
Symmetric transfer is not a part of C++ standards. So the vendors is not
forced to implement it any way. Given the symmetric transfer nowadays is
an optimization. It makes more sense to enable it only if the
optimization is enabled. It is also helpful for the compilation speed in
O0.
Background:
When we construct coroutine frame, we would insert a dbg.declare
intrinsic for it:
```
%hdl = call void @llvm.coro.begin() ; would return coroutine handle
call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr %hdl, metadata
![[DEBUG_VARIABLE: __coro_frame]], metadata !DIExpression())
```
And in the splitted coroutine, it looks like:
```
define void @coro_func.resume(ptr *hdl) {
entry.resume:
call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr %hdl, metadata
![[DEBUG_VARIABLE: __coro_frame]], metadata !DIExpression())
}
```
And we would salvage the debug info by inserting a new alloca here:
```
define void @coro_func.resume(ptr %hdl) {
entry.resume:
%frame.debug = alloca ptr
call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr %frame.debug, metadata
![[DEBUG_VARIABLE: __coro_frame]], metadata !DIExpression())
store ptr %hdl, %frame.debug
}
```
But now, the problem comes since the `dbg.declare` refers to the address
of that alloca instead of actual coroutine handle. I saw there are codes
to solve the problem but it only applies to complex expression only. I
feel if it is OK to relax the condition to make it work for
`__coro_frame`.
Reviewed By: jmorse
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126277
Async context frames are allocated with a maximum alignment. If a type
requests an alignment bigger than that dynamically align the address
in the frame.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126715
The EnableReuseStorageInFrame option is designed for testing only.
But it is better to use *_PASS_WITH_PARAMS macro to keep consistent with
other passes.
CoroCleanup is designed to lowering all the remaining coroutine
intrinsics. It is required to run after CoroSplit only. However, the
position of CoroCleanup now is far too late. The downside here is that
the unlowered coroutine instrincs might blocking other optimizations
too. So it should be a pure win to hoist the position of CoroCleanup.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124360
The legacy passes are deprecated now and would be removed in near
future. This patch tries to remove legacy passes in coroutines.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123918
This change could reduce the time we call `declaresCoroEarlyIntrinsics`.
And it is helpful for future changes.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123925
Guillaume Chatelet