The static analyzer is warning about potential null dereferences, but in these cases we should be able to use castAs<RecordType> directly and if not assert will fire for us.
llvm-svn: 373584
has a constexpr destructor.
For constexpr variables, reject if the variable does not have constant
destruction. In all cases, do not emit runtime calls to the destructor
for variables with constant destruction.
llvm-svn: 373159
This patch implements the code generation for OpenMP 5.0 declare mapper
(user-defined mapper) constructs. For each declare mapper, a mapper
function is generated. These mapper functions will be called by the
runtime and/or other mapper functions to achieve user defined mapping.
The design slides can be found at
https://github.com/lingda-li/public-sharing/blob/master/mapper_runtime_design.pptx
Re-commit after revert in r367773 because r367755 changed the LLVM-IR
output such that a CHECK line failed.
Patch by Lingda Li <lildmh@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59474
llvm-svn: 367905
This patch implements the code generation for OpenMP 5.0 declare mapper
(user-defined mapper) constructs. For each declare mapper, a mapper
function is generated. These mapper functions will be called by the
runtime and/or other mapper functions to achieve user defined mapping.
The design slides can be found at
https://github.com/lingda-li/public-sharing/blob/master/mapper_runtime_design.pptx
Patch by Lingda Li <lildmh@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59474
llvm-svn: 367773
The `this` parameter of a thunk requires adjustment. Stop emitting an
incorrect dbg.declare pointing to the unadjusted pointer.
We could describe the adjusted value instead, but there may not be much
benefit in doing so as users tend not to debug thunks.
Robert O'Callahan reports that this matches gcc's behavior.
Fixes PR42627.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65035
llvm-svn: 367269
Reason: this commit causes crashes in the clang compiler when building
LLVM Support with libc++, see https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42665
for details.
llvm-svn: 366429
Summary:
This patch does mainly three things:
1. It fixes a false positive error detection in Sema that is similar to
D62156. The error happens when explicitly calling an overloaded
destructor for different address spaces.
2. It selects the correct destructor when multiple overloads for
address spaces are available.
3. It inserts the expected address space cast when invoking a
destructor, if needed, and therefore fixes a crash due to the unmet
assertion in llvm::CastInst::Create.
The following is a reproducer of the three issues:
struct MyType {
~MyType() {}
~MyType() __constant {}
};
__constant MyType myGlobal{};
kernel void foo() {
myGlobal.~MyType(); // 1 and 2.
// 1. error: cannot initialize object parameter of type
// '__generic MyType' with an expression of type '__constant MyType'
// 2. error: no matching member function for call to '~MyType'
}
kernel void bar() {
// 3. The implicit call to the destructor crashes due to:
// Assertion `castIsValid(op, S, Ty) && "Invalid cast!"' failed.
// in llvm::CastInst::Create.
MyType myLocal;
}
The added test depends on D62413 and covers a few more things than the
above reproducer.
Subscribers: yaxunl, Anastasia, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64569
llvm-svn: 366422
Summary:
We will need to handle IntToPtr which I will submit in a separate patch as it's
not going to be NFC.
Reviewers: eugenis, pcc
Reviewed By: eugenis
Subscribers: hiraditya, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63940
llvm-svn: 365709
This case implicitly falls-through, which is fine now as it's at the end of the
function, but it seems like an accident waiting to happen.
llvm-svn: 365210
Summary:
When a variable is named in a context where we can't directly emit a
reference to it (because we don't know for sure that it's going to be
defined, or it's from an enclosing function and not captured, or the
reference might not "work" for some reason), we emit a copy of the
variable as a global and use that for the known-to-be-read-only access.
This reinstates r363295, reverted in r363352, with a fix for PR42276:
we now produce a proper name for a non-odr-use reference to a static
constexpr data member. The name <mangled-name>.const is used in that
case; such names are reserved to the implementation for cases such as
this and should demangle nicely.
Reviewers: rjmccall
Subscribers: jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63157
llvm-svn: 363428
Revert 363340 "Remove unused SK_LValueToRValue initialization step."
Revert 363337 "PR23833, DR2140: an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on a glvalue of type"
Revert 363295 "C++ DR712 and others: handle non-odr-use resulting from an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion applied to a member access or similar not-quite-trivial lvalue expression."
llvm-svn: 363352
Summary:
When a variable is named in a context where we can't directly emit a
reference to it (because we don't know for sure that it's going to be
defined, or it's from an enclosing function and not captured, or the
reference might not "work" for some reason), we emit a copy of the
variable as a global and use that for the known-to-be-read-only access.
Reviewers: rjmccall
Subscribers: jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63157
llvm-svn: 363295
Summary:
C guarantees that brace-init with fewer initializers than members in the
aggregate will initialize the rest of the aggregate as-if it were static
initialization. In turn static initialization guarantees that padding is
initialized to zero bits.
Quoth the Standard:
C17 6.7.9 Initialization ❡21
If there are fewer initializers in a brace-enclosed list than there are elements
or members of an aggregate, or fewer characters in a string literal used to
initialize an array of known size than there are elements in the array, the
remainder of the aggregate shall be initialized implicitly the same as objects
that have static storage duration.
C17 6.7.9 Initialization ❡10
If an object that has automatic storage duration is not initialized explicitly,
its value is indeterminate. If an object that has static or thread storage
duration is not initialized explicitly, then:
* if it has pointer type, it is initialized to a null pointer;
* if it has arithmetic type, it is initialized to (positive or unsigned) zero;
* if it is an aggregate, every member is initialized (recursively) according to
these rules, and any padding is initialized to zero bits;
* if it is a union, the first named member is initialized (recursively)
according to these rules, and any padding is initialized to zero bits;
<rdar://problem/50188861>
Reviewers: glider, pcc, kcc, rjmccall, erik.pilkington
Subscribers: jkorous, dexonsmith, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61280
llvm-svn: 359628
Summary:
This patch implements `__builtin_is_constant_evaluated` as specifier by [P0595R2](https://wg21.link/p0595r2). It is built on the back of Bill Wendling's work for `__builtin_constant_p()`.
More tests to come, but early feedback is appreciated.
I plan to implement warnings for common mis-usages like those belowe in a following patch:
```
void foo(int x) {
if constexpr (std::is_constant_evaluated())) { // condition is always `true`. Should use plain `if` instead.
foo_constexpr(x);
} else {
foo_runtime(x);
}
}
```
Reviewers: rsmith, MaskRay, bruno, void
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: dexonsmith, zoecarver, fdeazeve, kristina, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55500
llvm-svn: 359067
Summary:
alloca isn’t auto-init’d right now because it’s a different path in clang that
all the other stuff we support (it’s a builtin, not an expression).
Interestingly, alloca doesn’t have a type (as opposed to even VLA) so we can
really only initialize it with memset.
<rdar://problem/49794007>
Subscribers: jkorous, dexonsmith, cfe-commits, rjmccall, glider, kees, kcc, pcc
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60548
llvm-svn: 358243
When emitting initializers for local structures for code built with
-ftrivial-auto-var-init, replace constant structures with sequences of
stores.
This appears to greatly help removing dead initialization stores to those
locals that are later overwritten by other data.
This also removes a lot of .rodata constants (see PR40605), replacing most
of them with immediate values (for Linux kernel the .rodata size is
reduced by ~1.9%)
llvm-svn: 355181
When we have an annotated local variable after a function returns, we
generate IR that fails verification with the error
> Instruction referencing instruction not embedded in a basic block!
And it means that bitcast referencing alloca doesn't have a parent basic
block.
Fix by checking if we are at an unreachable point and skip emitting
annotations. This approach is similar to the way we emit variable
initializer and debug info.
rdar://problem/46200420
Reviewers: rjmccall
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Subscribers: aprantl, jkorous, dexonsmith, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58147
llvm-svn: 355166
When generating initializers for local structures in the
-ftrivial-auto-var-init mode, explicitly wipe the padding bytes with
either 0x00 or 0xAA.
This will allow us to automatically handle the padding when splitting
the initialization stores (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D57898).
Reviewed at https://reviews.llvm.org/D58188
llvm-svn: 354861
Summary:
Blocks that capture themselves (and escape) after initialization currently codegen wrong because this:
bool capturedByInit =
Init && emission.IsEscapingByRef && isCapturedBy(D, Init);
Address Loc =
capturedByInit ? emission.Addr : emission.getObjectAddress(*this);
Already adjusts Loc from thr alloca to a GEP. This code:
if (emission.IsEscapingByRef)
Loc = emitBlockByrefAddress(Loc, &D, /*follow=*/false);
Was trying to do the same adjustment, and a GEP on a GEP (returning an int) triggers an assertion.
<rdar://problem/47943027>
Reviewers: ahatanak
Subscribers: jkorous, dexonsmith, cfe-commits, rjmccall
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58218
llvm-svn: 354147
The various EltSize, Offset, DataLayout, and StructLayout arguments
are all computable from the Address's element type and the DataLayout
which the CGBuilder already has access to.
After having previously asserted that the computed values are the same
as those passed in, now remove the redundant arguments from
CGBuilder's Create*GEP functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57767
llvm-svn: 353629
Summary:
Automatic initialization [1] of __block variables was trampling over the block's
headers after they'd been initialized, which caused self-init usage to crash,
such as here:
typedef struct XYZ { void (^block)(); } *xyz_t;
__attribute__((noinline))
xyz_t create(void (^block)()) {
xyz_t myself = malloc(sizeof(struct XYZ));
myself->block = block;
return myself;
}
int main() {
__block xyz_t captured = create(^(){ (void)captured; });
}
This type of code shouldn't be broken by variable auto-init, even if it's
sketchy.
[1] With -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern
<rdar://problem/47798396>
Reviewers: rjmccall, pcc, kcc
Subscribers: jkorous, dexonsmith, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57797
llvm-svn: 353495
This patch implements parsing and sema for "omp declare mapper"
directive. User defined mapper, i.e., declare mapper directive, is a new
feature in OpenMP 5.0. It is introduced to extend existing map clauses
for the purpose of simplifying the copy of complex data structures
between host and device (i.e., deep copy). An example is shown below:
struct S { int len; int *d; };
#pragma omp declare mapper(struct S s) map(s, s.d[0:s.len]) // Memory region that d points to is also mapped using this mapper.
Contributed-by: Lingda Li <lildmh@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56326
llvm-svn: 352906
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
This attribute, called "objc_externally_retained", exposes clang's
notion of pseudo-__strong variables in ARC. Pseudo-strong variables
"borrow" their initializer, meaning that they don't retain/release
it, instead assuming that someone else is keeping their value alive.
If a function is annotated with this attribute, implicitly strong
parameters of that function aren't implicitly retained/released in
the function body, and are implicitly const. This is useful to expose
for performance reasons, most functions don't need the extra safety
of the retain/release, so programmers can opt out as needed.
This attribute can also apply to declarations of local variables,
with similar effect.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55865
llvm-svn: 350422
All of the other constructors already take a reference to the AST context.
This avoids calling Decl::getASTContext in most cases. Additionally move
the definition of the constructor from Expr.h to Expr.cpp since it is calling
DeclRefExpr::computeDependence. NFC.
llvm-svn: 349901
Summary:
Add an option to initialize automatic variables with either a pattern or with
zeroes. The default is still that automatic variables are uninitialized. Also
add attributes to request uninitialized on a per-variable basis, mainly to disable
initialization of large stack arrays when deemed too expensive.
This isn't meant to change the semantics of C and C++. Rather, it's meant to be
a last-resort when programmers inadvertently have some undefined behavior in
their code. This patch aims to make undefined behavior hurt less, which
security-minded people will be very happy about. Notably, this means that
there's no inadvertent information leak when:
- The compiler re-uses stack slots, and a value is used uninitialized.
- The compiler re-uses a register, and a value is used uninitialized.
- Stack structs / arrays / unions with padding are copied.
This patch only addresses stack and register information leaks. There's many
more infoleaks that we could address, and much more undefined behavior that
could be tamed. Let's keep this patch focused, and I'm happy to address related
issues elsewhere.
To keep the patch simple, only some `undef` is removed for now, see
`replaceUndef`. The padding-related infoleaks are therefore not all gone yet.
This will be addressed in a follow-up, mainly because addressing padding-related
leaks should be a stand-alone option which is implied by variable
initialization.
There are three options when it comes to automatic variable initialization:
0. Uninitialized
This is C and C++'s default. It's not changing. Depending on code
generation, a programmer who runs into undefined behavior by using an
uninialized automatic variable may observe any previous value (including
program secrets), or any value which the compiler saw fit to materialize on
the stack or in a register (this could be to synthesize an immediate, to
refer to code or data locations, to generate cookies, etc).
1. Pattern initialization
This is the recommended initialization approach. Pattern initialization's
goal is to initialize automatic variables with values which will likely
transform logic bugs into crashes down the line, are easily recognizable in
a crash dump, without being values which programmers can rely on for useful
program semantics. At the same time, pattern initialization tries to
generate code which will optimize well. You'll find the following details in
`patternFor`:
- Integers are initialized with repeated 0xAA bytes (infinite scream).
- Vectors of integers are also initialized with infinite scream.
- Pointers are initialized with infinite scream on 64-bit platforms because
it's an unmappable pointer value on architectures I'm aware of. Pointers
are initialize to 0x000000AA (small scream) on 32-bit platforms because
32-bit platforms don't consistently offer unmappable pages. When they do
it's usually the zero page. As people try this out, I expect that we'll
want to allow different platforms to customize this, let's do so later.
- Vectors of pointers are initialized the same way pointers are.
- Floating point values and vectors are initialized with a negative quiet
NaN with repeated 0xFF payload (e.g. 0xffffffff and 0xffffffffffffffff).
NaNs are nice (here, anways) because they propagate on arithmetic, making
it more likely that entire computations become NaN when a single
uninitialized value sneaks in.
- Arrays are initialized to their homogeneous elements' initialization
value, repeated. Stack-based Variable-Length Arrays (VLAs) are
runtime-initialized to the allocated size (no effort is made for negative
size, but zero-sized VLAs are untouched even if technically undefined).
- Structs are initialized to their heterogeneous element's initialization
values. Zero-size structs are initialized as 0xAA since they're allocated
a single byte.
- Unions are initialized using the initialization for the largest member of
the union.
Expect the values used for pattern initialization to change over time, as we
refine heuristics (both for performance and security). The goal is truly to
avoid injecting semantics into undefined behavior, and we should be
comfortable changing these values when there's a worthwhile point in doing
so.
Why so much infinite scream? Repeated byte patterns tend to be easy to
synthesize on most architectures, and otherwise memset is usually very
efficient. For values which aren't entirely repeated byte patterns, LLVM
will often generate code which does memset + a few stores.
2. Zero initialization
Zero initialize all values. This has the unfortunate side-effect of
providing semantics to otherwise undefined behavior, programs therefore
might start to rely on this behavior, and that's sad. However, some
programmers believe that pattern initialization is too expensive for them,
and data might show that they're right. The only way to make these
programmers wrong is to offer zero-initialization as an option, figure out
where they are right, and optimize the compiler into submission. Until the
compiler provides acceptable performance for all security-minded code, zero
initialization is a useful (if blunt) tool.
I've been asked for a fourth initialization option: user-provided byte value.
This might be useful, and can easily be added later.
Why is an out-of band initialization mecanism desired? We could instead use
-Wuninitialized! Indeed we could, but then we're forcing the programmer to
provide semantics for something which doesn't actually have any (it's
uninitialized!). It's then unclear whether `int derp = 0;` lends meaning to `0`,
or whether it's just there to shut that warning up. It's also way easier to use
a compiler flag than it is to manually and intelligently initialize all values
in a program.
Why not just rely on static analysis? Because it cannot reason about all dynamic
code paths effectively, and it has false positives. It's a great tool, could get
even better, but it's simply incapable of catching all uses of uninitialized
values.
Why not just rely on memory sanitizer? Because it's not universally available,
has a 3x performance cost, and shouldn't be deployed in production. Again, it's
a great tool, it'll find the dynamic uses of uninitialized variables that your
test coverage hits, but it won't find the ones that you encounter in production.
What's the performance like? Not too bad! Previous publications [0] have cited
2.7 to 4.5% averages. We've commmitted a few patches over the last few months to
address specific regressions, both in code size and performance. In all cases,
the optimizations are generally useful, but variable initialization benefits
from them a lot more than regular code does. We've got a handful of other
optimizations in mind, but the code is in good enough shape and has found enough
latent issues that it's a good time to get the change reviewed, checked in, and
have others kick the tires. We'll continue reducing overheads as we try this out
on diverse codebases.
Is it a good idea? Security-minded folks think so, and apparently so does the
Microsoft Visual Studio team [1] who say "Between 2017 and mid 2018, this
feature would have killed 49 MSRC cases that involved uninitialized struct data
leaking across a trust boundary. It would have also mitigated a number of bugs
involving uninitialized struct data being used directly.". They seem to use pure
zero initialization, and claim to have taken the overheads down to within noise.
Don't just trust Microsoft though, here's another relevant person asking for
this [2]. It's been proposed for GCC [3] and LLVM [4] before.
What are the caveats? A few!
- Variables declared in unreachable code, and used later, aren't initialized.
This goto, Duff's device, other objectionable uses of switch. This should
instead be a hard-error in any serious codebase.
- Volatile stack variables are still weird. That's pre-existing, it's really
the language's fault and this patch keeps it weird. We should deprecate
volatile [5].
- As noted above, padding isn't fully handled yet.
I don't think these caveats make the patch untenable because they can be
addressed separately.
Should this be on by default? Maybe, in some circumstances. It's a conversation
we can have when we've tried it out sufficiently, and we're confident that we've
eliminated enough of the overheads that most codebases would want to opt-in.
Let's keep our precious undefined behavior until that point in time.
How do I use it:
1. On the command-line:
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=uninitialized (the default)
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero -enable-trivial-auto-var-init-zero-knowing-it-will-be-removed-from-clang
2. Using an attribute:
int dont_initialize_me __attribute((uninitialized));
[0]: https://users.elis.ugent.be/~jsartor/researchDocs/OOPSLA2011Zero-submit.pdf
[1]: https://twitter.com/JosephBialek/status/1062774315098112001
[2]: https://outflux.net/slides/2018/lss/danger.pdf
[3]: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00615.html
[4]: 776a0955ef
[5]: http://wg21.link/p1152
I've also posted an RFC to cfe-dev: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-November/060172.html
<rdar://problem/39131435>
Reviewers: pcc, kcc, rsmith
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, jkorous, dexonsmith, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54604
llvm-svn: 349442
Tyker