Clang diagnostics refer to identifier names in quotes.
This patch makes inline remarks conform to the convention.
New behavior:
```
% clang -O2 -Rpass=inline -Rpass-missed=inline -S a.c
a.c:4:25: remark: 'foo' inlined into 'bar' with (cost=-30, threshold=337) at callsite bar:0:25; [-Rpass=inline]
int bar(int a) { return foo(a); }
^
```
Reviewed By: hoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107791
This test was modified in D104958. Invoking opt with -{passname} (vs
-passes={passname}) without -enable-new-pm={0|1} is now ambiguous and
dependent on how LLVM was configured. Drop the LPM runs rather than
fix since there unlikely to be any users still on LPM that rely on the
behavior in this test.
See also:
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-June/151553.html
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105154
I added an assertion in D91816 (documenting behavior added in D93422)
that callers and callees with mismatched fn attr's related to stack
protectors should not occur unless the callee was attributed
always_inline.
This falls apart when a call, invoke, or callbr (any instruction
inheriting from CallBase) itself has an always_inline attribute. Clang
will emit such attributes on Instructions when __attribute__((flatten))
is used to recursively force inlining from a caller.
Since these assertions only had the caller and callee Functions, and not
the call site (CallBase derived classes), we would have to search the
caller for such instructions to reconstruct the call site information.
But at that point, inlining has already occurred; the call site has
already been removed from the caller.
Remove the assertions, add a unit test for always_inline call sites, and
update the LangRef.
Another curiosity is that the always_inline Attribute on Instructions is
only expanded by the inline pass, not the always_inline pass.
Thanks to @pcc on this report when building Android's RunTime (ART)
interpreter.
Reviewed By: pcc, MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104944
While adding remark based tests in D104944, I noticed that the tests
that we were passing were passing for the wrong reason. They were
passing because the dynamic allocas were preventing inlining, not the
code I added in D91816.
Rewrite and simplify the test. Add remark based checks to validate we're
preventing inline substitutions for the right reasons.
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104958
It's common for code that manipulates the stack via inline assembly or
that has to set up its own stack canary (such as the Linux kernel) would
like to avoid stack protectors in certain functions. In this case, we've
been bitten by numerous bugs where a callee with a stack protector is
inlined into an attribute((no_stack_protector)) caller, which
generally breaks the caller's assumptions about not having a stack
protector. LTO exacerbates the issue.
While developers can avoid this by putting all no_stack_protector
functions in one translation unit together and compiling those with
-fno-stack-protector, it's generally not very ergonomic or as
ergonomic as a function attribute, and still doesn't work for LTO. See also:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20200915172658.1432732-1-rkir@google.com/https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200918201436.2932360-30-samitolvanen@google.com/T/#u
SSP attributes can be ordered by strength. Weakest to strongest, they
are: ssp, sspstrong, sspreq. Callees with differing SSP attributes may be
inlined into each other, and the strongest attribute will be applied to the
caller. (No change)
After this change:
* A callee with no SSP attributes will no longer be inlined into a
caller with SSP attributes.
* The reverse is also true: a callee with an SSP attribute will not be
inlined into a caller with no SSP attributes.
* The alwaysinline attribute overrides these rules.
Functions that get synthesized by the compiler may not get inlined as a
result if they are not created with the same stack protector function
attribute as their callers.
Alternative approach to https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956.
Fixes pr/47479.
Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Reviewed By: rnk, MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91816
It's currently ambiguous in IR whether the source language explicitly
did not want a stack a stack protector (in C, via function attribute
no_stack_protector) or doesn't care for any given function.
It's common for code that manipulates the stack via inline assembly or
that has to set up its own stack canary (such as the Linux kernel) would
like to avoid stack protectors in certain functions. In this case, we've
been bitten by numerous bugs where a callee with a stack protector is
inlined into an __attribute__((__no_stack_protector__)) caller, which
generally breaks the caller's assumptions about not having a stack
protector. LTO exacerbates the issue.
While developers can avoid this by putting all no_stack_protector
functions in one translation unit together and compiling those with
-fno-stack-protector, it's generally not very ergonomic or as
ergonomic as a function attribute, and still doesn't work for LTO. See also:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20200915172658.1432732-1-rkir@google.com/https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200918201436.2932360-30-samitolvanen@google.com/T/#u
Typically, when inlining a callee into a caller, the caller will be
upgraded in its level of stack protection (see adjustCallerSSPLevel()).
By adding an explicit attribute in the IR when the function attribute is
used in the source language, we can now identify such cases and prevent
inlining. Block inlining when the callee and caller differ in the case that one
contains `nossp` when the other has `ssp`, `sspstrong`, or `sspreq`.
Fixes pr/47479.
Reviewed By: void
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956
Fangrui Song