Now when the compiler can't find the sized deallocation function
correctly in promise_type if there are multiple deallocation function
overloads there.
According to [dcl.fct.def.coroutine]p12:
> If both a usual deallocation function with only a pointer parameter
> and a usual deallocation function with both a pointer parameter and a
> size parameter are found, then the selected deallocation function
> shall be the one with two parameters.
So when there are multiple deallocation functions, the compiler should
choose the sized one instead of the unsized one. The patch fixes this.
[dcl.fct.def.coroutine]p12 says:
> If both a usual deallocation function with only a pointer parameter
> and a usual deallocation function with both a pointer parameter and a
> size parameter are found, then the selected deallocation function
> shall be the one with two parameters.
However, the sized deallocation function is disabled by default for ABI
reasons. This leads the sentence never get tested and covered. This
commit tries to add a test for it
Closing https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57339
The root cause for this issue is an pre-mature optimization to eliminate
the index for the final suspend point since we feel like we can judge
if a coroutine is suspended at the final suspend by if resume_fn_addr is
null. However this is not true if the coroutine exists via an exception
in promise.unhandled_exception(). According to
[dcl.fct.def.coroutine]p14:
> If the evaluation of the expression promise.unhandled_exception()
> exits via an exception, the coroutine is considered suspended at the
> final suspend point.
But from the perspective of the implementation, we can't set the coro
index to the final suspend point directly since it breaks the states.
To fix the issue, we block the optimization if we find there is any
unwind coro end, which indicates that it is possible that the coroutine
exists via an exception from promise.unhandled_exception().
Test Plan: folly
Closing https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56329
The problem happens when we try to simplify the suspend points. We might
break the assumption that the final suspend lives in the last slot of
Shape.CoroSuspends. This patch tries to main the assumption and fixes
the problem.
Closing https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56919
It is meaningless to preserve the lifetime markers for the spilled
allocas in the coroutine frames and it would block some optimizations
too.
It is illegal to merge two `llvm.coro.save` calls unless their
`llvm.coro.suspend` users are also merged. Marks it "nomerge" for
the moment.
This reverts D129025.
Alternative to D129025, which affects other token type users like WinEH.
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129530
I noticed these two tests emit a warning about a missing
unhandled_exception. That's irrelevant to what is being tested, but
is unnecessary noise.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125535
This adds -no-opaque-pointers to clang tests whose output will
change when opaque pointers are enabled by default. This is
intended to be part of the migration approach described in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/enabling-opaque-pointers-by-default/61322/9.
The patch has been produced by replacing %clang_cc1 with
%clang_cc1 -no-opaque-pointers for tests that fail with opaque
pointers enabled. Worth noting that this doesn't cover all tests,
there's a remaining ~40 tests not using %clang_cc1 that will need
a followup change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123115
This flag was previously renamed `enable_noundef_analysis` to
`disable-noundef-analysis,` which is not a conventional name. (Driver and
CC1's boolean options are using [no-] prefix)
As discussed at https://reviews.llvm.org/D105169, this patch reverts its
name to `[no-]enable_noundef_analysis` and enables noundef-analysis as
default.
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119998
This patch tries to implement RVO for coroutine's return object got from
get_return_object.
From [dcl.fct.def.coroutine]/p7 we could know that the return value of
get_return_object is either a reference or a prvalue. So it makes sense
to do copy elision for the return value. The return object should be
constructed directly into the storage where they would otherwise be
copied/moved to.
Test Plan: folly, check-all
Reviewed By: junparser
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117087
without prototypes. This patch converts the function signatures to have
a prototype for the situations where the test is not specific to K&R C
declarations. e.g.,
void func();
becomes
void func(void);
This is the ninth batch of tests being updated (there are a
significant number of other tests left to be updated).
Turning on `enable_noundef_analysis` flag allows better codegen by removing freeze instructions.
I modified clang by renaming `enable_noundef_analysis` flag to `disable-noundef-analysis` and turning it off by default.
Test updates are made as a separate patch: D108453
Reviewed By: eugenis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105169
This fixes bug49264.
Simply, coroutine shouldn't be inlined before CoroSplit. And the marker
for pre-splited coroutine is created in CoroEarly pass, which ran after
AlwaysInliner Pass in O0 pipeline. So that the AlwaysInliner couldn't
detect it shouldn't inline a coroutine. So here is the error.
This patch set the presplit attribute in clang and mlir. So the inliner
would always detect the attribute before splitting.
Reviewed By: rjmccall, ezhulenev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115790
I found that the coroutine intrinsic llvm.coro.param in documentation
(https://llvm.org/docs/Coroutines.html#id101) didn't get used actually
since there isn't lowering codes in LLVM. I also checked the
implementation of libstdc++ and libc++. Both of them didn't use
llvm.coro.param. So I am pretty sure that the llvm.coro.param intrinsic
is unused. I think it would be better t to remove it to avoid possible
misleading understandings.
Note: according to [class.copy.elision]/p1.3, this optimization is
allowed by the C++ language specification. Let's make it someday.
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115222
Turning on `enable_noundef_analysis` flag allows better codegen by removing freeze instructions.
I modified clang by renaming `enable_noundef_analysis` flag to `disable-noundef-analysis` and turning it off by default.
Test updates are made as a separate patch: D108453
Reviewed By: eugenis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105169
[Clang/Test]: Rename enable_noundef_analysis to disable-noundef-analysis and turn it off by default (2)
This patch updates test files after D105169.
Autogenerated test codes are changed by `utils/update_cc_test_checks.py,` and non-autogenerated test codes are changed as follows:
(1) I wrote a python script that (partially) updates the tests using regex: {F18594904} The script is not perfect, but I believe it gives hints about which patterns are updated to have `noundef` attached.
(2) The remaining tests are updated manually.
Reviewed By: eugenis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108453
Resolve lit failures in clang after 8ca4b3e's land
Fix lit test failures in clang-ppc* and clang-x64-windows-msvc
Fix missing failures in clang-ppc64be* and retry fixing clang-x64-windows-msvc
Fix internal_clone(aarch64) inline assembly
Turning on `enable_noundef_analysis` flag allows better codegen by removing freeze instructions.
I modified clang by renaming `enable_noundef_analysis` flag to `disable-noundef-analysis` and turning it off by default.
Test updates are made as a separate patch: D108453
Reviewed By: eugenis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105169
Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are defined in
std::experimental namespace.
And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft
like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std
namespace instead of std::experimental namespace.
And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I
think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the
experiment namespace now.
This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace
first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in
std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std
namespace. So the existing codes wouldn't be break after update
compiler.
And in case the compiler found std::coroutine_traits and
std::experimental::coroutine_traits at the same time, it would emit an
error for it.
The support for looking up std::experimental::coroutine_traits would be
removed in Clang16.
Reviewed By: lxfind, Quuxplusone
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
This patch updates test files after D105169.
Autogenerated test codes are changed by `utils/update_cc_test_checks.py,` and non-autogenerated test codes are changed as follows:
(1) I wrote a python script that (partially) updates the tests using regex: {F18594904} The script is not perfect, but I believe it gives hints about which patterns are updated to have `noundef` attached.
(2) The remaining tests are updated manually.
Reviewed By: eugenis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108453
This reverts commit 2fbd254aa4, which broke the libc++ CI. I'm reverting
to get things stable again until we've figured out a way forward.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
Summary: Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are
defined in std::experimental namespace.
And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft
like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std
namespace instead of std::experimental namespace.
And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I
think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the
experiment namespace now.
But move the coroutine component into the std namespace may be an break
change. So I planned to split this change into two patch. One in clang
and other in libcxx.
This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace
first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in
std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std
namespace and emit a warning in this case. So the existing codes
wouldn't be break after update compiler.
Test Plan: check-clang, check-libcxx
Reviewed By: lxfind
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
It looks like this array was missed in 4276d4a8d0
Fixed tests that expected `elements` to be empty or depeneded on the order of the empty DINode.
Reviewed By: aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107024
This patch make coroutine passes run by default in LLVM pipeline. Now
the clang and opt could handle IR inputs containing coroutine intrinsics
without special options.
It should be fine. On the one hand, the coroutine passes seems to be stable
since there are already many projects using coroutine feature.
On the other hand, the coroutine passes should do nothing for IR who doesn't
contain coroutine intrinsic.
Test Plan: check-llvm
Reviewed by: lxfind, aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105877
Relevant discussion can be found at: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-January/148197.html
In the existing design, An SCC that contains a coroutine will go through the folloing passes:
Inliner -> CoroSplitPass (fake) -> FunctionSimplificationPipeline -> Inliner -> CoroSplitPass (real) -> FunctionSimplificationPipeline
The first CoroSplitPass doesn't do anything other than putting the SCC back to the queue so that the entire pipeline can repeat.
As you can see, we run Inliner twice on the SCC consecutively without doing any real split, which is unnecessary and likely unintended.
What we really wanted is this:
Inliner -> FunctionSimplificationPipeline -> CoroSplitPass -> FunctionSimplificationPipeline
(note that we don't really need to run Inliner again on the ramp function after split).
Hence the way we do it here is to move CoroSplitPass to the end of the CGSCC pipeline, make it once for real, insert the newly generated SCCs (the clones) back to the pipeline so that they can be optimized, and also add a function simplification pipeline after CoroSplit to optimize the post-split ramp function.
This approach also conforms to how the new pass manager works instead of relying on an adhoc post split cleanup, making it ready for full switch to new pass manager eventually.
By looking at some of the changes to the tests, we can already observe that this changes allows for more optimizations applied to coroutines.
Reviewed By: aeubanks, ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95807
CoroElide pass works only when a post-split coroutine is inlined into another post-split coroutine.
In O0, there is no inlining after CoroSplit, and hence no CoroElide can happen.
It's useless to put CoroElide pass in the O0 pipeline and it will never be triggered (unless I miss anything).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105066
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 6270b3a1ea,
relanding 0aa0458f14.
Printing pass manager invocations is fairly verbose and not super
useful.
This allows us to remove DebugLogging from pass managers and PassBuilder
since all logging (aside from analysis managers) goes through
instrumentation now.
This has the downside of never being able to print the top level pass
manager via instrumentation, but that seems like a minor downside.
Reviewed By: ychen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101797
The test added in D97533 (and modified by this patch) has some overly
strict printed metadata ordering requirements, specifically the
interleaving of DILocalVariable nodes and DILocation nodes. Slight changes
in metadata emission can easily break this unfortunately.
This patch stops after clang codegen rather than allowing the coro splitter
to run, and reduces the need for ordering: it picks out the
DILocalVariable nodes being sought, in any order (CHECK-DAG), and doesn't
examine any DILocations. The implicit CHECK-NOT is what's important: the
test seeks to ensure a duplicate set of DILocalVariables aren't emitted in
the same scope.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100298
This reverts commit fa6b54c44a.
The commited patch broke mlir tests. It seems that mlir tests depend on coroutine function properties set in CoroEarly pass.
Presplit coroutines cannot be inlined. During AlwaysInliner we check if a function is a presplit coroutine, if so we skip inlining.
The presplit coroutine attributes are set in CoroEarly pass.
However in O0 pipeline, AlwaysInliner runs before CoroEarly, so the attribute isn't set yet and will still inline the coroutine.
This causes Clang to crash: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49920
To fix this, we set the attributes in the Clang front-end instead of in CoroEarly pass.
Reviewed By: rjmccall, ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100282
Presplit coroutines cannot be inlined. During AlwaysInliner we check if a function is a presplit coroutine, if so we skip inlining.
The presplit coroutine attributes are set in CoroEarly pass.
However in O0 pipeline, AlwaysInliner runs before CoroEarly, so the attribute isn't set yet and will still inline the coroutine.
This causes Clang to crash: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49920
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100282
The first one is the real parameters of the coroutine function, the
other one just for copying parameters to the coroutine frame.
Considering the following c++ code:
```
struct coro {
...
};
coro foo(struct test & t) {
...
co_await suspend_always();
...
co_await suspend_always();
...
co_await suspend_always();
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
auto c = foo(...);
c.handle.resume();
...
}
```
Function foo is the standard coroutine function, and it has only
one parameter named t (ignoring this at first),
when we use the llvm code to compile this function, we can get the
following ir:
```
!2921 = distinct !DISubprogram(name: "foo", linkageName:
"_ZN6Object3fooE4test", scope: !2211, file: !45, li\
ne: 48, type: !2329, scopeLine: 48, flags: DIFlagPrototyped |
DIFlagAllCallsDescribed, spFlags: DISPFlagDefi\
nition | DISPFlagOptimized, unit: !44, declaration: !2328,
retainedNodes: !2922)
!2924 = !DILocalVariable(name: "t", arg: 2, scope: !2921, file: !45,
line: 48, type: !838)
...
!2926 = !DILocalVariable(name: "t", scope: !2921, type: !838, flags:
DIFlagArtificial)
```
We can find there are two `the same` DIVariable named t in the same
dwarf scope for foo.resume.
And when we try to use llvm-dwarfdump to dump the dwarf info of this
elf, we get the following output:
```
0x00006684: DW_TAG_subprogram
DW_AT_low_pc (0x00000000004013a0)
DW_AT_high_pc (0x00000000004013a8)
DW_AT_frame_base (DW_OP_reg7 RSP)
DW_AT_object_pointer (0x0000669c)
DW_AT_GNU_all_call_sites (true)
DW_AT_specification (0x00005b5c "_ZN6Object3fooE4test")
0x000066a5: DW_TAG_formal_parameter
DW_AT_name ("t")
DW_AT_decl_file ("/disk1/yifeng.dongyifeng/my_code/llvm/build/bin/coro-debug-1.cpp")
DW_AT_decl_line (48)
DW_AT_type (0x00004146 "test")
0x000066ba: DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name ("t")
DW_AT_type (0x00004146 "test")
DW_AT_artificial (true)
```
The elf also has two 't' in the same scope.
But unluckily, it might let the debugger
confused. And failed to print parameters for O0 or above.
This patch will make coroutine parameters and move
parameters use the same DIVar and try to fix the problems
that I mentioned before.
Test Plan: check-clang
Reviewed By: aprantl, jmorse
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97533
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
Zequan Wu