Cool, thanks. -eric
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Akira Hatanaka <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, I'll check in a patch that fixes X86_32TargetInfo::validateInputSize > first then. > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Akira Hatanaka <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Akira Hatanaka <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You'll want to split out the new contraints for input size into a >>>>>> separate patch. (And just commit it). >>>>>> A small comment of why we're ignoring dependent types would be good. >>>>>> >>>>>> One question: Why not just add all of the contraints first rather >>>>>> than piecemeal as you get testcases? (Related to the comment above). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your question, are you >>>>> suggesting I use "=abcdSD" instead of "=a" in the test case and do the >>>>> check in one line? >>>>> >>>>> uint64_t val; >>>>> >>>>> __asm__ volatile("addl %1, %0" : "=abcdSD" (val) : "a" (msr)); // >>>>> expected-error {{invalid output size for constraint '=abcdSD'}} >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Are you also suggesting that we should have clang print just the >>>>> constraints that are invalid in the error message? For example, if we >>>>> added >>>>> "A" and use "=abcdSDA" instead, clang would remove "A", since it can be >>>>> bound to a 64-bit variable, and print "=abcdSD" or "abcdSD" instead? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> No, I'm curious why you're adding S and D now, but not any other >>>> constraint that has a size associated with the register. >>>> >>>> >>> OK, I see. I just felt that S and D should be added too, since they are >>> single register constraints that have to be bound to variables smaller than >>> 64-bit, as constraints a-d are. >>> >>> I can probably add R, q, Q, to the switch-case statement too. Also, in >>> my next patch, I was going to add checks for constraints x and y. >>> >>> Should I add the all the constraints I mentioned above to >>> X86_32TargetInfo::validateInputSize or X86TargetInfo::validateInputSize >>> first and then add the checks for output constraints? >>> >> >> Seems like a reasonable way to go yes? >> >> -eric >> >> >>> >>> -eric >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> -eric >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri Aug 29 2014 at 4:46:37 PM Akira Hatanaka <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Does the latest patch look fine? I am working on another patch which >>>>>>> fixes a similar bug and I need to commit this patch first. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Akira Hatanaka <[email protected] >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Latest version of the patch is attached which fixes a couple of >>>>>>>> oversights. I had to add a line which checks whether Ty is a dependent >>>>>>>> type >>>>>>>> before getTypeSize is called. Also, in the test case, "=" was missing >>>>>>>> before constraint "a", so fixed that too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> New patch looks good to me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It sounds like we have two cases of size mismatch: >>>>>>>>> - The output operand lvalue is smaller than the constraint, >>>>>>>>> meaning the store will write out of bounds. Your patch adds this. >>>>>>>>> - The output operand lvalue is bigger than the constraint, meaning >>>>>>>>> the whole value won't be initialized. We currently warn here via >>>>>>>>> validateConstraintModifier. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This code probably deserves some cleanup, but your patch is >>>>>>>>> consistent with what we do for input operands, so let's go with that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The reason llvm is crashing in the backend is that it's trying to >>>>>>>> use a 64-bit register in 32-bit mode. It's not because a store is >>>>>>>> writing >>>>>>>> out of bounds or there is a value left uninitialized. In the test >>>>>>>> case, if >>>>>>>> we declare the variable bound to constraint "=a" to be a unit32_t or an >>>>>>>> integer type that is smaller than 32-bit, clang compiles the program >>>>>>>> fine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Akira Hatanaka < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The commit log in r166737 doesn't say much about why this is a >>>>>>>>>> warning instead of an error, but I know there are cases where >>>>>>>>>> warnings are >>>>>>>>>> needed. For example, clang has to issue warnings instead of errors >>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>> inline-asm statements in the test case committed in r216260. If it's >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> desirable to change validateConstraintModifier, we can add a >>>>>>>>>> function which >>>>>>>>>> checks the output size that is similar to validateInputSize in >>>>>>>>>> r167717 (see >>>>>>>>>> attached patch), which was suggested in the post-commit review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/067945.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am not sure whether we can use fixit in this case. Fixit hints >>>>>>>>>> should be used only if we know the user's intent and it's very clear >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> applying the fixit hint is the right thing to do. Changing the type >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> variable "r" to a 32-bit int will avoid crashing, but it doesn't >>>>>>>>>> look like >>>>>>>>>> that's what the user wants. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you investigate why we are warning in the first place? I >>>>>>>>>>> think we should either only warn or only error. Currently we have a >>>>>>>>>>> warning >>>>>>>>>>> with a fixit but we don't recover as though we had applied the >>>>>>>>>>> fixit. If we >>>>>>>>>>> did that, we would not crash. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In addition to the Clang-side changes, LLVM should probably be >>>>>>>>>>> returning an error or reporting a fatal error instead of hitting >>>>>>>>>>> unreachable. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Akira Hatanaka < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rebased patches attached. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also made changes to the clang patch so that clang can >>>>>>>>>>>> error-out after a size mismatch is found as soon as >>>>>>>>>>>> possible.TargetInfo::validateConstraintModifier has an extra >>>>>>>>>>>> parameter >>>>>>>>>>>> IsError, which is set when it decides there is no point in >>>>>>>>>>>> continuing >>>>>>>>>>>> compilation and it should stop compilation immediately. The error >>>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>> clang prints looks better than lllvm's message, but if it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>> right to >>>>>>>>>>>> change the warning to an error, then I guess we have to detect the >>>>>>>>>>>> error >>>>>>>>>>>> later just before isel, as is done in the llvm patch. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Akira Hatanaka < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm should error-out when a 64-bit variable is bound to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> single register in x86 32-bit mode, but ToT clang/llvm fails to >>>>>>>>>>>>> detect this >>>>>>>>>>>>> error and continues compilation until it crashes in >>>>>>>>>>>>> type-legalization: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> $ llc test/CodeGen/X86/inline-asm-regsize.ll -O3 >>>>>>>>>>>>> -mtriple=i386-apple-darwin -o - >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inline-asm-regsize.ll -O3 -mtriple=i386-apple-darwin -o - >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> .section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ExpandIntegerResult #0: 0x7fa2d1041728: i64 = Register %RCX >>>>>>>>>>>>> [ID=0] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not know how to expand the result of this operator! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> UNREACHABLE executed at >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Users/ahatanaka/projects/llvm/git/llvm3/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeIntegerTypes.cpp:1116! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The attached patch fixes llvm to error-out and print this >>>>>>>>>>>>> error message: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> error: Cannot bind a variable larger than 32-bit to a single >>>>>>>>>>>>> register in 32-bit mode >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My initial solution was to have clang detect this error in >>>>>>>>>>>>> TargetInfo::validateConstraintModifier. However, the code in >>>>>>>>>>>>> SemaStmtAsm.cpp has to be changed to error-out instead of issuing >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> warning, which I wasn't sure was the right thing to do. I am >>>>>>>>>>>>> attaching this >>>>>>>>>>>>> patch too in case someone has a suggestion or an opinion on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdar://problem/17476970> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
