The attached patch is a follow-up to r217994. I defined a new function validateOperandSize, which is used to check both input and output sizes.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
x86inlineasm-output-size1.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
