This patch follows https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112477.
Previously `-fsanitize=shadow-call-stack` (which get transform to
`Attribute::ShadowCallStack`) is used for enable both hardware and
software shadow stack, and another option `-force-sw-shadow-stack` is
needed if the user wants to use the software shadow stack where hardware
software shadow stack could be supported. It decouples both by using the
string attribute `hw-shadow-stack` to distinguish from the software
shadow stack attribute.
This patch enable hardware shadow stack with `Zicifss` and
`mno-forced-sw-shadow-stack`. New feature forced-sw-shadow-stack
disables hardware shadow stack even when `Zicfiss` enabled.
R_RISCV_CALL/R_RISCV_CALL_PLT distinction is not necessary and
R_RISCV_CALL has been deprecated. Since https://reviews.llvm.org/D132530
`call foo` assembles to R_RISCV_CALL_PLT. The `@plt` suffix is not
useful and can be removed now (matching AArch64 and PowerPC).
GNU assembler assembles `call foo` to RISCV_CALL_PLT since 2022-09
(70f35d72ef04cd23771875c1661c9975044a749c).
Without this patch, unconditionally changing MO_CALL to MO_PLT could
create `jump .L1@plt, a0`, which is invalid in LLVM integrated assembler
and GNU assembler.
Prior to this patch the SCS prologue used the following instruction
sequence.
```
s[w|d] ra, 0(gp)
addi gp, gp, [4|8]
```
The problem with this sequence is that an interrupt occurring between the
store and the increment could clobber the value just written to the SCS.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84414#inline-813203 pointed out a similar
issues that could have affected the epilogue.
This patch changes the instruction sequence in the prologue to:
```
addi gp, gp, [4|8]
s[w|d] ra, -[4|8](gp)
```
The downside to this is that there is now a data dependency between the
add and the store.
Reviewed By: asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D149099
Currently we don't emit any CFI instructions for the SCS register when
enabling SCS on RISCV. This causes problems when unwinding, since the
SCS register isn't being handled properly.
Reviewed By: mcgrathr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D145205
This change adjusts the cost modeling used when the target does not have a schedule model with individual instruction latencies. After this change, we use the default latency information available from TargetSchedule. The default latency information essentially ends up treating most instructions as latency 1, with a few "expensive" ones getting a higher cost.
Previously, we unconditionally applied the first legal pattern - without any consideration of profitability. As a result, this change both prevents some patterns being applied, and changes which patterns are exercised. (i.e. previously the first pattern was applied, afterwards, maybe the second one is because the first wasn't profitable.)
The motivation here is two fold.
First, this brings the default behavior in line with the behavior when -mcpu or -mtune is specified. This improves test coverage, and generally makes it less likely we will have bad surprises when providing more information to the compiler.
Second, this enables some reassociation for ILP by default. Despite being unconditionally enabled, the prior code tended to "reassociate" repeatedly through an entire chain and simply moving the first operand to the end. The result was still a serial chain, just a different one. With this change, one of the intermediate transforms is unprofitable and we end up with a partially flattened tree.
Note that the resulting code diffs show significant room for improvement in the basic algorithm. I am intentionally excluding those from this patch.
For the test diffs, I don't seen any concerning regressions. I took a fairly close look at the RISCV ones, but only skimmed the x86 (particularly vector x86) changes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D141017
Inspired by D138107.
We can add ADD, AND, OR, XOR, MUL, MIN[U]/MAX[U] to isAssociativeAndCommutative
to increase instruction-level parallelism by the existing MachineCombiner pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140530
SLLI and ADD are more compressible than SLLIW and ADDW. SLLI/ADD both have a 5-bit register encoding. SLLIW/ADDW have a 3-bit register encoding. They both require the dest to also be one of the sources.
We aggressively form ADDW/SLLIW as it helps hasAllWBitUsers in RISCVISelDAGToDAG to not require recursion. So we need a pass to remove excessive -w suffixes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139948
These instructions requires both register operands to be compressible
so I've only applied the hint if we already have a GPRC physical register
assigned for the other register operand.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139079
add can always be compressed to c.add if one of the sources is the
same as the destination.
The same is not true for c.addw where the registers need to be x8-x15.
After D86836, we can define multiple cost values for
different cost models. So here we set CostPerUse to
1 iff RVC is enabled to avoid potential impact on RA.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117741
Currently, we restore the return address register as the last restoring
instruction in the epilog. The next instruction is `ret` usually. It is
a use of return address register. In some microarchitectures, there is
load-to-use data hazard. To avoid the load-to-use data hazard, we could
separate the load instruction from its use as far as possible. In this
patch, we reverse the order of restoring callee-saved registers to
increase the distance of `load ra` and `ret` in the epilog.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113967
We normally select these when the root node is a sext_inreg, but
SimplifyDemandedBits can sometimes bypass the sext_inreg for some
users. This can create situation where sext_inreg+add/sub/mul/shl
is selected to a W instruction, and then the add/sub/mul/shl is
separately selected to a non-W instruction with the same inputs.
This patch tries to detect when it would still be ok to use a W
instruction without the sext_inreg by checking the direct users.
This can allow the W instruction to CSE with one created for a
sext_inreg+add/sub/mul/shl. To minimize complexity and cost of
checking, we make no attempt to determine if the CSE will happen
and just always use a W instruction when we can.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107658
Regenerated using:
./llvm/utils/update_llc_test_checks.py -u llvm/test/CodeGen/RISCV/*.ll
This has added comments to spill-related instructions and added @plt to
some symbols.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92841
Currenlty assume x18 is used as pointer to shadow call stack. User shall pass
flags:
"-fsanitize=shadow-call-stack -ffixed-x18"
Runtime supported is needed to setup x18.
If SCS is desired, all parts of the program should be built with -ffixed-x18 to
maintain inter-operatability.
There's no particuluar reason that we must use x18 as SCS pointer. Any register
may be used, as long as it does not have designated purpose already, like RA or
passing call arguments.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84414
