This patch updates the scope line to point to the suspend point. This
makes the first address in the function point to the first source line
in the resume function rather than the function declaration. Without
this the line table "jumps" from the beginning of the function to the
suspend point at the beginning.
rdar://73386346
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97345
See pr46990(https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46990). LICM should not sink store instructions to loop exit blocks which cross coro.suspend intrinsics. This breaks semantic of coro.suspend intrinsic which return to caller directly. Also this leads to use-after-free if the coroutine is freed before control returns to the caller in multithread environment.
This patch disable promotion by check whether loop contains coro.suspend intrinsics.
This is a resubmit of D86190.
Disabling LICM for loops with coroutine suspension is a better option not only for correctness purpose but also for performance purpose.
In most cases LICM sinks memory operations. In the case of coroutine, sinking memory operation out of the loop does not improve performance since coroutien needs to get data from the frame anyway. In fact LICM would hurt coroutine performance since it adds more entries to the frame.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96928
Before we used the same argument as the entry point. The resume partial
function might want to use a different ABI for its context argument
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97333
This doesn't actually reproduce with a dbg.declare(i8* null, ...)
which produces a non-null null Value, but I have seen this show up in
crash logs. I'm suspecting that there may be another pass forcibly
setting the operand to a nullptr.
In the existing logic, we look at the lifetime.start marker of each alloca, and check all uses of the alloca, to see if any pair of the lifetime marker and an use of alloca crosses suspension point.
This approach is unfortunately incorrect. An use of alloca does not need to be a direct use, but can be an indirect use through alias.
Only checking direct uses can miss cases where indirect uses are crossing suspension point.
This can be demonstrated in the newly added test case 007.
In the test case, both x and y are only directly used prior to suspend, but they are captured into an alias, merged through a PHINode (so they couldn't be materialized), and used after CoroSuspend.
If we only check whether the lifetime starts cross suspension points with direct uses, we will put the allocas to the stack, and then capture their addresses in the frame.
Instead of fixing it in D96441 and D96566, this patch takes a different approach which I think is better.
We still checks the lifetime info in the same way as before, but with two differences:
1. The collection of liftime.start is moved into AllocaUseVisitor to make the logic more concentrated.
2. When looking at lifetime.start and use pairs, we not only checks the direct uses as before, but in this patch we check all uses collected by AllocaUseVisitor, which would include all indirect uses through alias. This will make the analysis more accurate without throwing away the lifetime optimization.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96922
The new intrinsic replaces the size in one specified AsyncFunctionPointer with
the size in another. This ability is necessary for functions which merely
forward to async functions such as those defined for partial applications.
Reviewed By: aschwaighofer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97229
As discussed in D94834, we don't really need to do complicated analysis. It's safe to just drop the tail call attribute.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96926
Also don't call function to update the call graph if there are no
clones. The function will fail.
rdar://74277860
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96620
This allows for suspend point specific resume function types.
Return values from a suspend point can therefore be modelled as
arguments to the resume function. Allowing for directly passed return
types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96136
Dynamic allocas that still exist have been verified to be only used
'locally' not accross a suspend point.
rdar://73903220
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96071
and fix a few edge cases that show up in the Swift compiler but
weren't caught by the existing tests. Most notably the old code wasn't
salvaging load operations correctly. The patch also gets rid of the
LoadFromFramePtr argument and replaces it with a more generalized
mechanism.
This patch improves the availability for variables stored in the
coroutine frame by emitting an alloca to hold the pointer to the frame
object and rewriting dbg.declare intrinsics to point inside the frame
object using salvaged DIExpressions. Finally, a new alloca is created
in the funclet to hold the FramePtr pointer to ensure that it is
available throughout the entire function at -O0.
This path also effectively reverts D90772. The testcase updates
highlight nicely how every removed CHECK for a dbg.value is preceded
by a new CHECK for a dbg.declare.
Thanks to JunMa, Yifeng, and Bruno for their thoughtful reviews!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93497
rdar://71866936
A @llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl is only useful if there is !alias.scope and !noalias metadata that uses the declared scope.
When that is not the case for at least one of the two, the intrinsic call can as well be removed.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95141
With the addition of the `willreturn` attribute, functions that may
not return (e.g. due to an infinite loop) are well defined, if they are
not marked as `willreturn`.
This patch updates `wouldInstructionBeTriviallyDead` to not consider
calls that may not return as dead.
This patch still provides an escape hatch for intrinsics, which are
still assumed as willreturn unconditionally. It will be removed once
all intrinsics definitions have been reviewed and updated.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94106
Insert a llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl intrinsic that identifies where a noalias argument was inlined.
This patch includes some refactorings from D90104.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93040
The test wasn't sensitive to alias analysis. As you can seen from D95117 when AA is added by default this is affected.
Updating the test so that it coveres both cases for AA analysis.
Note that this patch depends on D95117 to land first.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95247
Because we were not looking for the llvm.coro.id.async intrinsic in the
early coro pass which triggers follow-up passes we relied on the
llvm.coro.end intrinsic being present. This might not be the case in
functions that end in unreachable code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95144
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Initially reverted due to BasicAA running analyses in an unspecified
order (multiple function calls as parameters), fixed by fetching
analyses before the call to construct BasicAA.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
Summary: This is to address bug48712.
The solution in this patch is that when we want to merge two variable a
into the storage frame of variable b only if the alignment of a is
multiple of b.
There may be other strategies. But now I think they are hard to handle
and benefit little. Or we can implement them in the future.
Test-plan: check-llvm
Reviewers: jmorse, lxfind, junparser
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94891
This is to address https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48626.
When there are musttail calls that use parameters aliasing the newly created coroutine frame, the existing implementation will fatal.
We simply cannot perform CoroElide in such cases. In theory a precise analysis can be done to check whether the parameters of the musttail call
actually alias the frame, but it's very hard to do it before the transformation happens. Also in most cases the existence of musttail call is
generated due to symmetric transfers, and in those cases alias analysis won't be able to tell that they don't alias anyway.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94834
promise is a header field but it is not guaranteed that it would be the third
field of the frame due to `performOptimizedStructLayout`.
Reviewed By: lxfind
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94137
Apparently there can be no clones, as happens in
coro-retcon-unreachable.ll.
The alternative is to allow no split functions in
addSplitRefRecursiveFunctions(), but it seems better to have the caller
make sure it's not accidentally splitting no functions out.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94258
Previously when trying to support CoroSplit's function splitting, we
added in a hack that simply added the new function's node into the
original function's SCC (https://reviews.llvm.org/D87798). This is
incorrect since it might be in its own SCC.
Now, more similar to the previous design, we have callers explicitly
notify the LazyCallGraph that a function has been split out from another
one.
In order to properly support CoroSplit, there are two ways functions can
be split out.
One is the normal expected "outlining" of one function into a new one.
The new function may only contain references to other functions that the
original did. The original function must reference the new function. The
new function may reference the original function, which can result in
the new function being in the same SCC as the original function. The
weird case is when the original function indirectly references the new
function, but the new function directly calls the original function,
resulting in the new SCC being a parent of the original function's SCC.
This form of function splitting works with CoroSplit's Switch ABI.
The second way of splitting is more specific to CoroSplit. CoroSplit's
Retcon and Async ABIs split the original function into multiple
functions that all reference each other and are referenced by the
original function. In order to keep the LazyCallGraph in a valid state,
all new functions must be processed together, else some nodes won't be
populated. To keep things simple, this only supports the case where all
new edges are ref edges, and every new function references every other
new function. There can be a reference back from any new function to the
original function, putting all functions in the same RefSCC.
This also adds asserts that all nodes in a (Ref)SCC can reach all other
nodes to prevent future incorrect hacks.
The original hacks in https://reviews.llvm.org/D87798 are no longer
necessary since all new functions should have been registered before
calling updateCGAndAnalysisManagerForPass.
This fixes all coroutine tests when opt's -enable-new-pm is true by
default. This also fixes PR48190, which was likely due to the previous
hack breaking SCC invariants.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93828
The llvm.coro.end.async intrinsic allows to specify a function that is
to be called as the last action before returning. This function will be
inlined after coroutine splitting.
This function can contain a 'musttail' call to allow for guaranteed tail
calling as the last action.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93568
Following up with the comments in D92706.
- Use -passes instead of -enable-new-pm
- CoroEarly should happen before AlwaysInliner, adjust it.
- Remove some unnecessary barriers (still kept one)
- Cleanup unnecessary debug info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93342
This is a rework of D85812, which didn't land.
When callee coroutine function is inlined into caller coroutine function before coro-split pass, llvm will emits "coroutine should have exactly one defining @llvm.coro.begin". It seems that coro-early pass can not handle this quiet well.
So we believe that unsplited coroutine function should not be inlined.
This patch fix such issue by not inlining function if it has attribute "coroutine.presplit" (it means the function has not been splited) to fix this issue
test plan: check-llvm, check-clang
In D85812, there was suggestions on moving the macros to Attributes.td to avoid circular header dependency issue.
I believe it's not worth doing just to be able to use one constant string in one place.
Today, there are already 3 possible attribute values for "coroutine.presplit": c6543cc6b8/llvm/lib/Transforms/Coroutines/CoroInternal.h (L40-L42)
If we move them into Attributes.td, we would be adding 3 new attributes to EnumAttr, just to support this, which I think is an overkill.
Instead, I think the best way to do this is to add an API in Function class that checks whether this function is a coroutine, by checking the attribute by name directly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92706
In the existing logic, for a given alloca, as long as its pointer value is stored into another location, it's considered as escaped.
This is a bit too conservative. Specifically, in non-optimized build mode, it's often to have patterns of code that first store an alloca somewhere and then load it right away.
These used should be handled without conservatively marking them escaped.
This patch tracks how the memory location where an alloca pointer is stored into is being used. As long as we only try to load from that location and nothing else, we can still
consider the original alloca not escaping and keep it on the stack instead of putting it on the frame.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91305
In the existing logic, for a given alloca, as long as its pointer value is stored into another location, it's considered as escaped.
This is a bit too conservative. Specifically, in non-optimized build mode, it's often to have patterns of code that first store an alloca somewhere and then load it right away.
These used should be handled without conservatively marking them escaped.
This patch tracks how the memory location where an alloca pointer is stored into is being used. As long as we only try to load from that location and nothing else, we can still
consider the original alloca not escaping and keep it on the stack instead of putting it on the frame.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91305
We need to be able to call function pointers. Inline the dispatch
function.
Also inline the context projection function.
Transfer debug locations from the suspend point to the inlined functions.
Use the function argument index instead of the function argument in
coro.id.async. This solves any spurious use issues.
Coerce the arguments of the tail call function at a suspend point. The LLVM
optimizer seems to drop casts leading to a vararg intrinsic.
rdar://70097093
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91098
Tracking local variables across suspend points is still somewhat incomplete.
Consider this coroutine snippet:
```
resumable foo() {
int x[10] = {};
int a = 3;
co_await std::experimental::suspend_always();
a++;
x[0] = 1;
a += 2;
x[1] = 2;
a += 3;
x[2] = 3;
}
```
Can't manage to print `a` or `x` if they turn out to be allocas during
CoroSplit (which happens if you build this code with `-O0` prior to this
commit):
```
* thread #1, queue = 'com.apple.main-thread', stop reason = step over
frame #0: 0x0000000100003729 main-noprint`foo() at main-noprint.cpp:43:5
40 co_await std::experimental::suspend_always();
41 a++;
42 x[0] = 1;
-> 43 a += 2;
44 x[1] = 2;
45 a += 3;
46 x[2] = 3;
(lldb) p x
error: <user expression 21>:1:1: use of undeclared identifier 'x'
x
^
```
The generated IR contains a `llvm.dbg.declare` for `x` in it's initialization
basic block. After CoroSplit, the `llvm.dbg.declare` might not dominate all of
`x` uses and we lose debugging quality.
Add `llvm.dbg.value`s to all relevant basic blocks such that if later
transformations break the dominance the reliable debug info is already in
place. For instance, this BB:
```
await.ready:
...
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %x.reload.addr, i64 0, i64 0, !dbg !760
...
%arrayidx19 = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %x.reload.addr, i64 0, i64 1, !dbg !763
...
%arrayidx21 = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %x.reload.addr, i64 0, i64 2, !dbg !766
```
becomes:
```
await.ready:
...
call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata [10 x i32]* %x.reload.addr, metadata !751, metadata !DIExpression()), !dbg !753
...
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %x.reload.addr, i64 0, i64 0, !dbg !760
...
%arrayidx19 = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %x.reload.addr, i64 0, i64 1, !dbg !763
...
%arrayidx21 = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %x.reload.addr, i64 0, i64 2, !dbg !766
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90772
Prior to D89768, any alloca that's used after suspension points will be put on to the coroutine frame, and hence they will always be reloaded in the resume function.
However D89768 introduced a more precise way to determine whether an alloca should live on the frame. Allocas that are only used within one suspension region (hence does not need to live across suspension points) will not be put on the frame. They will remain local to the resume function.
When creating the new entry for the .resume function, the existing logic only moved all the allocas from the old entry to the new entry. This covers every alloca from the old entry. However allocas that's defined afer coro.begin are put into a separate basic block during CoroSplit (the PostSpill basic block). We need to make sure these allocas are moved to the new entry as well if they are used.
This patch walks through all allocas, and check if they are still used but are not reachable from the new entry, if so, we move them to the new entry.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90977
The `llvm.coro.suspend.async` intrinsic takes a function pointer as its
argument that describes how-to restore the current continuation's
context from the context argument of the continuation function. Before
we assumed that the current context can be restored by loading from the
context arguments first pointer field (`first_arg->caller_context`).
This allows for defining suspension points that reuse the current
context for example.
Also:
llvm.coro.id.async lowering: Add llvm.coro.preprare.async intrinsic
Blocks inlining until after the async coroutine was split.
Also, change the async function pointer's context size position
struct async_function_pointer {
uint32_t relative_function_pointer_to_async_impl;
uint32_t context_size;
}
And make the position of the `async context` argument configurable. The
position is specified by the `llvm.coro.id.async` intrinsic.
rdar://70097093
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90783
This patch adds the `async` lowering of coroutines.
This will be used by the Swift frontend to lower async functions. In
contrast to the `retcon` lowering the frontend needs to be in control
over control-flow at suspend points as execution might be suspended at
these points.
This is very much work in progress and the implementation will change as
it evolves with the frontend. As such the documentation is lacking
detail as some of it might change.
rdar://70097093
Reapply with fix for memory sanitizer failure and sphinx failure.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90612
This patch adds the `async` lowering of coroutines.
This will be used by the Swift frontend to lower async functions. In
contrast to the `retcon` lowering the frontend needs to be in control
over control-flow at suspend points as execution might be suspended at
these points.
This is very much work in progress and the implementation will change as
it evolves with the frontend. As such the documentation is lacking
detail as some of it might change.
rdar://70097093
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90612
The existing logic in determining whether an alloca should live on the frame only looks explicit def-use relationships. However a value defined by an alloca may be implicitly needed across suspension points, either because an alias has across-suspension-point def-use relationship, or escaped by store/call/memory intrinsics. To properly handle all these cases, we have to properly visit the alloca pointer up-front. Thie patch extends the exisiting alloca use visitor to determine whether an alloca should live on the frame.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89768
After investigation by @asbirlea, the issue that caused the
revert appears to be an issue in the original source, rather
than a problem with the compiler.
This patch enables MemorySSA DSE again.
This reverts commit 915310bf14.
This patch is a refactoring of how we process spills and allocas during CoroSplit.
In the previous implementation, everything that needs to go to the heap is put into Spills, including all the values defined by allocas.
And the way to identify a Spill, is to check whether there exists a use-def relationship that crosses suspension points.
This approach is fundamentally confusing, and unfortunately, incorrect.
First of all, allocas are always process differently than spills, hence it's quite confusing to put them together. It's a much cleaner to separate them and process them separately.
Doing so simplify lots of code and makes the logic more clear and easier to reason about.
Secondly, use-def relationship is insufficient to decide whether a value defined by AllocaInst needs to go to the heap.
There are many cases where a value defined by AllocaInst can implicitly be used across suspension points without a direct use-def relationship.
For example, you can store the address of an alloca into the heap, and load that address after suspension. Or you can escape the address into an object through a function call.
Or you can have a PHINode that takes two allocas, and this PHINode is used across suspension point (when this happens, the existing implementation will spill the PHINode, a.k.a a stack adddress to the heap!).
All these issues suggest that we need to separate spill and alloca in order to properly implement this.
This patch does not yet fix these bugs, however it sets up the code in a better shape so that we can start fixing them in the next patch.
The core idea of this patch is to add a new struct called FrameDataInfo, which contains all Spills, all Allocas, and a map from each definition to its layout index in the frame (FieldIndexMap).
Spills and Allocas are identified, stored and processed independently. When they are initially added to the frame, we record their field index through FieldIndexMap. When the frame layout is finalized, we update each index into their final layout index.
In doing so, I also cleaned up a few things and also discovered a few other bugs.
Cleanups:
1. Found out that PromiseFieldId is not used, delete it.
2. Previously, SpillInfo is a vector, which is strange because every def can have multiple users. This patch cleans it up by turning it into a map from def to users.
3. Previously, a frame Field struct contains a list of Spills that field corresponds to. This isn't necessary since we only need the layout index for each given definition. This patch removes that list. Instead, we connect each field and definition using the FieldIndexMap.
4. All the loops that process Spills are simplified now because we use a map instead of a vector.
Bugs:
It seems that we are only keeping llvm.dbg.declare intrinsics in the .resume part of the function. The ramp function will no longer has it. This means we are dropping some debug information in the ramp function.
The next step is to start fixing the bugs where the implementation fails to identify some allocas that should live on the frame.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88872
Arnold Schwaighofer