The original change was reverted because it was discovered
that clang mishandles thunks, and they receive wrong
attributes for their this/return types - the ones for the function
they will call, not the ones they have.
While i have tried to fix this in https://reviews.llvm.org/D100388
that patch has been up and stuck for a month now,
with little signs of progress.
So while it will be good to solve this for real,
for now we can simply avoid introducing the bug,
by not annotating this/return for thunks.
This reverts commit 6270b3a1eafaba4279e021418c5a2c5a35abc002,
relanding 0aa0458f1429372038ca6a4edc7e94c96cd9a753.
As it is being noted in D99249, lack of alignment information on `this`
has been preventing LICM from happening.
For some time now, lack of alignment attribute does *not* imply
natural alignment, but an alignment of `1`.
Also, we used to treat dereferenceable as implying alignment,
but we no longer do, so it's a bugfix.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99790
After D17993, with -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks we add the dereferenceable attribute to the `this` pointer.
We have observed that one internal target which worked before fails even with -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks.
Switching to dereferenceable_or_null fixes the problem.
dereferenceable currently does not always respect NullPointerIsValid and may
imply nonnull and lead to aggressive optimization. The optimization may be
related to `CallBase::isReturnNonNull`, `Argument::hasNonNullAttr`, or
`Value::getPointerDereferenceableBytes`. See D66664 and D66618 for some discussions.
Reviewed By: bkramer, rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92297
arguments.
* Adds 'nonnull' and 'dereferenceable(N)' to 'this' pointer arguments
* Gates 'nonnull' on -f(no-)delete-null-pointer-checks
* Introduces this-nonnull.cpp and microsoft-abi-this-nullable.cpp tests to
explicitly test the behavior of this change
* Refactors hundreds of over-constrained clang tests to permit these
attributes, where needed
* Updates Clang12 patch notes mentioning this change
Reviewed-by: rsmith, jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D17993
