Implement support for C++2a requires-expressions.
Re-commit after compilation failure on some platforms due to alignment issues with PointerIntPair.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50360
GCC supports the conditional operator on VectorTypes that acts as a
'select' in C++ mode. This patch implements the support. Types are
converted as closely to GCC's behavior as possible, though in a few
places consistency with our existing vector type support was preferred.
Note that this implementation is different from the OpenCL version in a
number of ways, so it unfortunately required a different implementation.
First, the SEMA rules and promotion rules are significantly different.
Secondly, GCC implements COND[i] != 0 ? LHS[i] : RHS[i] (where i is in
the range 0- VectorSize, for each element). In OpenCL, the condition is
COND[i] < 0 ? LHS[i]: RHS[i].
In the process of implementing this, it was also required to make the
expression COND ? LHS : RHS type dependent if COND is type dependent,
since the type is now dependent on the condition. For example:
T ? 1 : 2;
Is not typically type dependent, since the result can be deduced from
the operands. HOWEVER, if T is a VectorType now, it could change this
to a 'select' (basically a swizzle with a non-constant mask) with the 1
and 2 being promoted to vectors themselves.
While this is a change, it is NOT a standards incompatible change. Based
on my (and D. Gregor's, at the time of writing the code) reading of the
standard, the expression is supposed to be type dependent if ANY
sub-expression is type dependent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71463
Update the IRBuilder to generate constrained FP comparisons in
CreateFCmp when IsFPConstrained is true, similar to the other
places in the IRBuilder.
Also, add a new CreateFCmpS to emit signaling FP comparisons,
and use it in clang where comparisons are supposed to be signaling
(currently, only when emitting code for the <, <=, >, >= operators).
Note that there is currently no way to add fast-math flags to a
constrained FP comparison, since this is implemented as an intrinsic
call that returns a boolean type, and FMF are only allowed for calls
returning a floating-point type. However, given the discussion around
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42179, it seems that FCmp itself
really shouldn't have any FMF either, so this is probably OK.
Reviewed by: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71467
Added codegen support for lastprivate conditional. According to the
standard, if when the conditional modifier appears on the clause, if an
assignment to a list item is encountered in the construct then the
original list item is assigned the value that is assigned to the new
list item in the sequentially last iteration or lexically last section
in which such an assignment is encountered.
We look for the assignment operations and check if the left side
references lastprivate conditional variable. Then the next code is
emitted:
if (last_iv_a <= iv) {
last_iv_a = iv;
last_a = lp_a;
}
At the end the implicit barrier is generated to wait for the end of all
threads and then in the check for the last iteration the private copy is
assigned the last value.
if (last_iter) {
lp_a = last_a; // <--- new code
a = lp_a; // <--- store of private value to the original variable.
}
We have an fneg instruction now and should use it instead of the fsub -0.0 idiom. Looks like we had no test that showed that we handled the negation cases here so I've added new tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72010
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.
This fixes the buildbot failures.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68328
Patch by Joseph Faulls!
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
Nikita Popov