[Diagnostics] Update SwiftASTContext to use the new DiagnosticConsumer interface #58
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
swiftlang/swift#27868 |
jrose-apple
added a commit
to jrose-apple/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 2019
[Diagnostics] Update SwiftASTContext to use the new DiagnosticConsumer interface
jrose-apple
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 2019
[Diagnostics] Update SwiftASTContext to use the new DiagnosticConsumer interface
adrian-prantl
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2023
…callback
The `TypeSystemMap::m_mutex` guards against concurrent modifications
of members of `TypeSystemMap`. In particular, `m_map`.
`TypeSystemMap::ForEach` iterates through the entire `m_map` calling
a user-specified callback for each entry. This is all done while
`m_mutex` is locked. However, there's nothing that guarantees that
the callback itself won't call back into `TypeSystemMap` APIs on the
same thread. This lead to double-locking `m_mutex`, which is undefined
behaviour. We've seen this cause a deadlock in the swift plugin with
following backtrace:
```
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<int> up = std::make_unique<int>(5);
volatile int val = *up;
return val;
}
clang++ -std=c++2a -g -O1 main.cpp
./bin/lldb -o “br se -p return” -o run -o “v *up” -o “expr *up” -b
```
```
frame #4: std::lock_guard<std::mutex>::lock_guard
frame #5: lldb_private::TypeSystemMap::GetTypeSystemForLanguage <<<< Lock #2
frame #6: lldb_private::TypeSystemMap::GetTypeSystemForLanguage
frame #7: lldb_private::Target::GetScratchTypeSystemForLanguage
...
frame #26: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::LoadLibraryUsingPaths
frame #27: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::LoadModule
frame #30: swift::ModuleDecl::collectLinkLibraries
frame #31: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::LoadModule
frame #34: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::GetCompileUnitImportsImpl
frame #35: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::PerformCompileUnitImports
frame #36: lldb_private::TypeSystemSwiftTypeRefForExpressions::GetSwiftASTContext
frame #37: lldb_private::TypeSystemSwiftTypeRefForExpressions::GetPersistentExpressionState
frame #38: lldb_private::Target::GetPersistentSymbol
frame #41: lldb_private::TypeSystemMap::ForEach <<<< Lock #1
frame #42: lldb_private::Target::GetPersistentSymbol
frame #43: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::FindInUserDefinedSymbols
frame #44: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::FindSymbol
frame #45: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::MemoryManager::GetSymbolAddressAndPresence
frame #46: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::MemoryManager::findSymbol
frame #47: non-virtual thunk to lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::MemoryManager::findSymbol
frame #48: llvm::LinkingSymbolResolver::findSymbol
frame #49: llvm::LegacyJITSymbolResolver::lookup
frame #50: llvm::RuntimeDyldImpl::resolveExternalSymbols
frame #51: llvm::RuntimeDyldImpl::resolveRelocations
frame #52: llvm::MCJIT::finalizeLoadedModules
frame #53: llvm::MCJIT::finalizeObject
frame #54: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::ReportAllocations
frame #55: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::GetRunnableInfo
frame #56: lldb_private::ClangExpressionParser::PrepareForExecution
frame #57: lldb_private::ClangUserExpression::TryParse
frame #58: lldb_private::ClangUserExpression::Parse
```
Our solution is to simply iterate over a local copy of `m_map`.
**Testing**
* Confirmed on manual reproducer (would reproduce 100% of the time
before the patch)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D149949
(cherry picked from commit dda3a6a)
swift-ci
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2023
…callback
The `TypeSystemMap::m_mutex` guards against concurrent modifications
of members of `TypeSystemMap`. In particular, `m_map`.
`TypeSystemMap::ForEach` iterates through the entire `m_map` calling
a user-specified callback for each entry. This is all done while
`m_mutex` is locked. However, there's nothing that guarantees that
the callback itself won't call back into `TypeSystemMap` APIs on the
same thread. This lead to double-locking `m_mutex`, which is undefined
behaviour. We've seen this cause a deadlock in the swift plugin with
following backtrace:
```
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<int> up = std::make_unique<int>(5);
volatile int val = *up;
return val;
}
clang++ -std=c++2a -g -O1 main.cpp
./bin/lldb -o “br se -p return” -o run -o “v *up” -o “expr *up” -b
```
```
frame #4: std::lock_guard<std::mutex>::lock_guard
frame #5: lldb_private::TypeSystemMap::GetTypeSystemForLanguage <<<< Lock #2
frame #6: lldb_private::TypeSystemMap::GetTypeSystemForLanguage
frame #7: lldb_private::Target::GetScratchTypeSystemForLanguage
...
frame #26: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::LoadLibraryUsingPaths
frame #27: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::LoadModule
frame #30: swift::ModuleDecl::collectLinkLibraries
frame #31: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::LoadModule
frame #34: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::GetCompileUnitImportsImpl
frame #35: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::PerformCompileUnitImports
frame #36: lldb_private::TypeSystemSwiftTypeRefForExpressions::GetSwiftASTContext
frame #37: lldb_private::TypeSystemSwiftTypeRefForExpressions::GetPersistentExpressionState
frame #38: lldb_private::Target::GetPersistentSymbol
frame #41: lldb_private::TypeSystemMap::ForEach <<<< Lock #1
frame #42: lldb_private::Target::GetPersistentSymbol
frame #43: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::FindInUserDefinedSymbols
frame #44: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::FindSymbol
frame #45: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::MemoryManager::GetSymbolAddressAndPresence
frame #46: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::MemoryManager::findSymbol
frame #47: non-virtual thunk to lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::MemoryManager::findSymbol
frame #48: llvm::LinkingSymbolResolver::findSymbol
frame #49: llvm::LegacyJITSymbolResolver::lookup
frame #50: llvm::RuntimeDyldImpl::resolveExternalSymbols
frame #51: llvm::RuntimeDyldImpl::resolveRelocations
frame #52: llvm::MCJIT::finalizeLoadedModules
frame #53: llvm::MCJIT::finalizeObject
frame #54: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::ReportAllocations
frame #55: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::GetRunnableInfo
frame #56: lldb_private::ClangExpressionParser::PrepareForExecution
frame #57: lldb_private::ClangUserExpression::TryParse
frame #58: lldb_private::ClangUserExpression::Parse
```
Our solution is to simply iterate over a local copy of `m_map`.
**Testing**
* Confirmed on manual reproducer (would reproduce 100% of the time
before the patch)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D149949
swift-ci
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2024
) Currently, process of replacing bitwise operations consisting of `LSR`/`LSL` with `And` is performed by `DAGCombiner`. However, in certain cases, the `AND` generated by this process can be removed. Consider following case: ``` lsr x8, x8, #56 and x8, x8, #0xfc ldr w0, [x2, x8] ret ``` In this case, we can remove the `AND` by changing the target of `LDR` to `[X2, X8, LSL #2]` and right-shifting amount change to 56 to 58. after changed: ``` lsr x8, x8, #58 ldr w0, [x2, x8, lsl #2] ret ``` This patch checks to see if the `SHIFTING` + `AND` operation on load target can be optimized and optimizes it if it can.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See swiftlang/swift#27868 for details