I fixed the aforementioned problems that came up on some of the linux boxes.
Major thanks to Nick Lewycky for his help debugging!
rdar://14590914
llvm-svn: 188122
This reverts commit r187941.
The commit was passing on my os x box, but it is failing on some non-osx
platforms. I do not have time to look into it now, so I am reverting and will
recommit after I figure this out.
llvm-svn: 187946
This is apart of a series of patches to encapsulate PtrState.RRI and
make PtrState.RRI a private field of PtrState.
*NOTE* This is actually the second commit in the patch stream. I should
have put this note on the first such commit r184528.
llvm-svn: 184532
In the presense of a block being initialized, the frontend will emit the
objc_retain on the original pointer and the release on the pointer loaded from
the alloca. The optimizer will through the provenance analysis realize that the
two are related (albiet different), but since we only require KnownSafe in one
direction, will match the inner retain on the original pointer with the guard
release on the original pointer. This is fixed by ensuring that in the presense
of allocas we only unconditionally remove pointers if both our retain and our
release are KnownSafe (i.e. we are KnownSafe in both directions) since we must
deal with the possibility that the frontend will emit what (to the optimizer)
appears to be unbalanced retain/releases.
An example of the miscompile is:
%A = alloca
retain(%x)
retain(%x) <--- Inner Retain
store %x, %A
%y = load %A
... DO STUFF ...
release(%y)
call void @use(%x)
release(%x) <--- Guarding Release
getting optimized to:
%A = alloca
retain(%x)
store %x, %A
%y = load %A
... DO STUFF ...
release(%y)
call void @use(%x)
rdar://13750319
llvm-svn: 181743
This makes the statistics gathering completely independent of the actual
optimization occuring, preventing any sort of bleeding over from occuring.
Additionally, it simplifies a switch statement in the non-statistic gathering case.
llvm-svn: 181719
Turning retains into retainRV calls disrupts the data flow analysis in
ObjCARCOpts. Thus we move it as late as we can by moving it into
ObjCARCContract.
We leave in the conversion from retainRV -> retain in ObjCARCOpt since
it enables the dataflow analysis.
rdar://10813093
llvm-svn: 180698
This reverts commit r180222.
I think this might tie in with a different problem which will require a
different approach potentially. I am reverting this in the case I need to go
down that second path.
My apologies for the noise. = /.
llvm-svn: 180590
Due to the semantics of ARC, we must be extremely conservative with autorelease
calls inserted by the frontend since ARC gaurantees that said object will be in
the autorelease pool after that point, an optimization invariant that the
optimizer must respect.
On the other hand, we are allowed significantly more flexibility with
autoreleaseRV instructions.
Often times though this flexibility is disrupted by early transformations which
transform objc_autoreleaseRV => objc_autorelease if said instruction is no
longer being used as part of an RV pair (generally due to inlining). Since we
can not tell the difference in between an autorelease put into place by the
frontend and one created through said ``strength reduction'' we can not perform
these optimizations.
The addition of this set gets around said issues by allowing us to differentiate
in between said two cases.
rdar://problem/13697741.
llvm-svn: 180222
This will make it clearer when we are actually resetting a sequence's progress
vs just changing state. This is an important distinction because the former case
clears any pointers that we are tracking while the later does not.
llvm-svn: 179963
This occurs due to an alloca representing a separate ownership from the
original pointer. Thus consider the following pseudo-IR:
objc_retain(%a)
for (...) {
objc_retain(%a)
%block <- %a
F(%block)
objc_release(%block)
}
objc_release(%a)
From the perspective of the optimizer, the %block is a separate
provenance from the original %a. Thus the optimizer pairs up the inner
retain for %a and the outer release from %a, resulting in segfaults.
This is fixed by noting that the signature of a mismatch of
retain/releases inside the for loop is a Use/CanRelease top down with an
None bottom up (since bottom up the Retain-CanRelease-Use-Release
sequence is completed by the inner objc_retain, but top down due to the
differing provenance from the objc_release said sequence is not
completed). In said case in CheckForCFGHazards, we now clear the state
of %a implying that no pairing will occur.
Additionally a test case is included.
rdar://12969722
llvm-svn: 179747
Michael Gottesman