I noticed we weren't propagating tail flags on calls when
FortifiedLibCallSimplifier.optimizeCall() was replacing calls to runtime
checked calls to the non-checked routines (when safe to do so). Make
sure to check this before replacing the original calls!
Also, avoid any libcall transforms when notail/musttail is present.
PR46734
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/46079
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107872
Currently the max alignment representable is 1GB, see D108661.
Setting the align of an object to 4GB is desirable in some cases to make sure the lower 32 bits are clear which can be used for some optimizations, e.g. https://crbug.com/1016945.
This uses an extra bit in instructions that carry an alignment. We can store 15 bits of "free" information, and with this change some instructions (e.g. AtomicCmpXchgInst) use 14 bits.
We can increase the max alignment representable above 4GB (up to 2^62) since we're only using 33 of the 64 values, but I've just limited it to 4GB for now.
The one place we have to update the bitcode format is for the alloca instruction. It stores its alignment into 5 bits of a 32 bit bitfield. I've added another field which is 8 bits and should be future proof for a while. For backward compatibility, we check if the old field has a value and use that, otherwise use the new field.
Updating clang's max allowed alignment will come in a future patch.
Reviewed By: hans
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110451
Currently the max alignment representable is 1GB, see D108661.
Setting the align of an object to 4GB is desirable in some cases to make sure the lower 32 bits are clear which can be used for some optimizations, e.g. https://crbug.com/1016945.
This uses an extra bit in instructions that carry an alignment. We can store 15 bits of "free" information, and with this change some instructions (e.g. AtomicCmpXchgInst) use 14 bits.
We can increase the max alignment representable above 4GB (up to 2^62) since we're only using 33 of the 64 values, but I've just limited it to 4GB for now.
The one place we have to update the bitcode format is for the alloca instruction. It stores its alignment into 5 bits of a 32 bit bitfield. I've added another field which is 8 bits and should be future proof for a while. For backward compatibility, we check if the old field has a value and use that, otherwise use the new field.
Updating clang's max allowed alignment will come in a future patch.
Reviewed By: hans
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110451
Currently the max alignment representable is 1GB, see D108661.
Setting the align of an object to 4GB is desirable in some cases to make sure the lower 32 bits are clear which can be used for some optimizations, e.g. https://crbug.com/1016945.
This uses an extra bit in instructions that carry an alignment. We can store 15 bits of "free" information, and with this change some instructions (e.g. AtomicCmpXchgInst) use 14 bits.
We can increase the max alignment representable above 4GB (up to 2^62) since we're only using 33 of the 64 values, but I've just limited it to 4GB for now.
The one place we have to update the bitcode format is for the alloca instruction. It stores its alignment into 5 bits of a 32 bit bitfield. I've added another field which is 8 bits and should be future proof for a while. For backward compatibility, we check if the old field has a value and use that, otherwise use the new field.
Updating clang's max allowed alignment will come in a future patch.
Reviewed By: hans
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110451
In LLVM IR, `AlignmentBitfieldElementT` is 5-bit wide
But that means that the maximal alignment exponent is `(1<<5)-2`,
which is `30`, not `29`. And indeed, alignment of `1073741824`
roundtrips IR serialization-deserialization.
While this doesn't seem all that important, this doubles
the maximal supported alignment from 512MiB to 1GiB,
and there's actually one noticeable use-case for that;
On X86, the huge pages can have sizes of 2MiB and 1GiB (!).
So while this doesn't add support for truly huge alignments,
which i think we can easily-ish do if wanted, i think this adds
zero-cost support for a not-trivially-dismissable case.
I don't believe we need any upgrade infrastructure,
and since we don't explicitly record the IR version,
we don't need to bump one either.
As @craig.topper speculates in D108661#2963519,
this might be an artificial limit imposed by the original implementation
of the `getAlignment()` functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108661
- When emitting libcalls, do not only pass the calling convention from the
function prototype but also the attributes.
- Do not pass attributes from e.g. libc memcpy to llvm.memcpy.
Review: Reid Kleckner, Eli Friedman, Arthur Eubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103992
I think we can use here same logic as for nonnull.
strlen(X) - X must be noundef => valid pointer.
for libcalls with size arg, we add noundef only if size is known and greater than 0 - so pointers must be noundef (valid ones)
Reviewed By: jdoerfert, aqjune
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95122
In https://llvm.org/PR48810 , we are crashing while trying to
propagate attributes from mempcpy (returns void*) to memcpy
(returns nothing - void).
We can avoid the crash by removing known incompatible
attributes for the void return type.
I'm not sure if this goes far enough (should we just drop all
attributes since this isn't the same function?). We also need
to audit other transforms in LibCallSimplifier to make sure
there are no other cases that have the same problem.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95088
Summary:
Back-end currently expands mempcpy, but middle-end should work with memcpy instead of mempcpy to enable more memcpy-optimization.
GCC backend emits mempcpy, so LLVM backend could form it too, if we know mempcpy libcall is better than memcpy + n.
https://godbolt.org/z/dOCG96
Reviewers: efriedma, spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: hjl.tools, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65737
llvm-svn: 370593
