For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
This moves Bitcode/Bitstream*, Bitcode/BitCodes.h to Bitstream/.
This is needed to avoid a circular dependency when using the bitstream
code for parsing optimization remarks.
Since Bitcode uses Core for the IR part:
libLLVMRemarks -> Bitcode -> Core
and Core uses libLLVMRemarks to generate remarks (see
IR/RemarkStreamer.cpp):
Core -> libLLVMRemarks
we need to separate the Bitstream and Bitcode part.
For clang-doc, it seems that it doesn't need the whole bitcode layer, so
I updated the CMake to only use the bitstream part.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63899
llvm-svn: 365091
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
Summary:
Records in the module summary index whether the bitcode was compiled
with the option necessary to enable splitting the LTO unit
(e.g. -fsanitize=cfi, -fwhole-program-vtables, or -fsplit-lto-unit).
The information is passed down to the ModuleSummaryIndex builder via a
new module flag "EnableSplitLTOUnit", which is propagated onto a flag
on the summary index.
This is then used during the LTO link to check whether all linked
summaries were built with the same value of this flag. If not, an error
is issued when we detect a situation requiring whole program visibility
of the class hierarchy. This is the case when both of the following
conditions are met:
1) We are performing LowerTypeTests or Whole Program Devirtualization.
2) There are type tests or type checked loads in the code.
Note I have also changed the ThinLTOBitcodeWriter to also gate the
module splitting on the value of this flag.
Reviewers: pcc
Subscribers: ormris, mehdi_amini, Prazek, inglorion, eraman, steven_wu, dexonsmith, arphaman, dang, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53890
llvm-svn: 350948
If a regular LTO module has a summary index, then instead of linking
it into the combined regular LTO module right away, add it to the
combined summary index and associate it with a special module that
represents the combined regular LTO module.
Any such modules are linked during LTO::run(), at which time we use
the results of summary-based dead stripping to control whether to
link prevailing symbols.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33922
llvm-svn: 305482
This data type includes the contents of a bitcode file.
Right now a bitcode file can only contain modules, but
a later change will add a symbol table.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33969
llvm-svn: 305019
Summary:
As discussed in the D32195 review thread and on IRC, remove this option
and replace with parameter, which will be set to true when invoked
from clang in the context of a ThinLTO distributed backend.
Reviewers: pcc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33133
llvm-svn: 302939
This is to prepare for an upcoming change which uses pointers instead of
GUIDs to represent references.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32469
llvm-svn: 301843
Add a top-level STRTAB block containing a string table blob, and start storing
strings for module codes FUNCTION, GLOBALVAR, ALIAS, IFUNC and COMDAT in
the string table.
This change allows us to share names between globals and comdats as well
as between modules, and improves the efficiency of loading bitcode files by
no longer using a bit encoding for symbol names. Once we start writing the
irsymtab to the bitcode file we will also be able to share strings between
it and the module.
On my machine, link time for Chromium for Linux with ThinLTO decreases by
about 7% for no-op incremental builds or about 1% for full builds. Total
bitcode file size decreases by about 3%.
As discussed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/111732.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31838
llvm-svn: 300464
Summary:
When reading the metadata bitcode, create a type declaration when
possible for composite types when we are importing. Doing this in
the bitcode reader saves memory. Also it works naturally in the case
when the type ODR map contains a definition for the same composite type
because it was used in the importing module (buildODRType will
automatically use the existing definition and not create a type
declaration).
For Chromium built with -g2, this reduces the aggregate size of the
generated native object files by 66% (from 31G to 10G). It reduced
the time through the ThinLTO link and backend phases by about 20% on
my machine.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, dblaikie, aprantl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27775
llvm-svn: 289993
This program is for testing features that rely on multi-module bitcode files.
It takes a multi-module bitcode file, extracts one of the modules and writes
it to the output file.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26778
llvm-svn: 288201
This interface allows clients to write multiple modules to a single
bitcode file. Also introduce the llvm-cat utility which can be used
to create a bitcode file containing multiple modules.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26179
llvm-svn: 288195
We now expect each module's identification block to appear immediately before
the module block. Any module block that appears without an identification block
immediately before it is interpreted as if it does not have a module block.
Also change the interpretation of VST and function offsets in bitcode.
The offset is always taken as relative to the start of the identification
(or module if not present) block, minus one word. This corresponds to the
historical interpretation of offsets, i.e. relative to the start of the file.
These changes allow for bitcode modules to be concatenated by copying bytes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27184
llvm-svn: 288098
The functions getBitcodeTargetTriple(), isBitcodeContainingObjCCategory(),
getBitcodeProducerString() and hasGlobalValueSummary() now return errors
via their return value rather than via the diagnostic handler.
To make this work, re-implement these functions using non-member functions
so that they can be used without the LLVMContext required by BitcodeReader.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26532
llvm-svn: 286623
Summary:
Split ReaderWriter.h which contains the APIs into both the BitReader and
BitWriter libraries into BitcodeReader.h and BitcodeWriter.h.
This is to address Chandler's concern about sharing the same API header
between multiple libraries (BitReader and BitWriter). That concern is
why we create a single bitcode library in our downstream build of clang,
which led to r286297 being reverted as it added a dependency that
created a cycle only when there is a single bitcode library (not two as
in upstream).
Reviewers: mehdi_amini
Subscribers: dlj, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26502
llvm-svn: 286566
