in the current lexical scope.
clang currently emits the lifetime.start marker of a variable when the
variable comes into scope even though a variable's lifetime starts at
the entry of the block with which it is associated, according to the C
standard. This normally doesn't cause any problems, but in the rare case
where a goto jumps backwards past the variable declaration to an earlier
point in the block (see the test case added to lifetime2.c), it can
cause mis-compilation.
To prevent such mis-compiles, this commit conservatively disables
emitting lifetime variables when a label has been seen in the current
block.
This problem was discussed on cfe-dev here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2016-July/050066.html
rdar://problem/
30153946
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27680
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@293106
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
// Emit a lifetime intrinsic if meaningful. There's no point in doing this
// if we don't have a valid insertion point (?).
if (HaveInsertPoint() && !IsMSCatchParam) {
- // goto or switch-case statements can break lifetime into several
- // regions which need more efforts to handle them correctly. PR28267
- // This is rare case, but it's better just omit intrinsics than have
- // them incorrectly placed.
- if (!Bypasses.IsBypassed(&D)) {
+ // If there's a jump into the lifetime of this variable, its lifetime
+ // gets broken up into several regions in IR, which requires more work
+ // to handle correctly. For now, just omit the intrinsics; this is a
+ // rare case, and it's better to just be conservatively correct.
+ // PR28267.
+ //
+ // We have to do this in all language modes if there's a jump past the
+ // declaration. We also have to do it in C if there's a jump to an
+ // earlier point in the current block because non-VLA lifetimes begin as
+ // soon as the containing block is entered, not when its variables
+ // actually come into scope; suppressing the lifetime annotations
+ // completely in this case is unnecessarily pessimistic, but again, this
+ // is rare.
+ if (!Bypasses.IsBypassed(&D) &&
+ !(!getLangOpts().CPlusPlus && hasLabelBeenSeenInCurrentScope())) {
uint64_t size = CGM.getDataLayout().getTypeAllocSize(allocaTy);
emission.SizeForLifetimeMarkers =
EmitLifetimeStart(size, address.getPointer());
/// value. This is invalid iff the function has no return value.
Address ReturnValue;
+ /// Return true if a label was seen in the current scope.
+ bool hasLabelBeenSeenInCurrentScope() const {
+ if (CurLexicalScope)
+ return CurLexicalScope->hasLabels();
+ return !LabelMap.empty();
+ }
+
/// AllocaInsertPoint - This is an instruction in the entry block before which
/// we prefer to insert allocas.
llvm::AssertingVH<llvm::Instruction> AllocaInsertPt;
rescopeLabels();
}
+ bool hasLabels() const {
+ return !Labels.empty();
+ }
+
void rescopeLabels();
};
-// RUN: %clang -S -emit-llvm -o - -O2 %s | FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=CHECK,O2
-// RUN: %clang -S -emit-llvm -o - -O2 -Xclang -disable-lifetime-markers %s \
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -S -emit-llvm -o - -O2 -disable-llvm-passes %s | FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=CHECK,O2
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -S -emit-llvm -o - -O2 -disable-lifetime-markers %s \
// RUN: | FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=CHECK,O0
-// RUN: %clang -S -emit-llvm -o - -O0 %s | FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=CHECK,O0
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -S -emit-llvm -o - -O0 %s | FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=CHECK,O0
extern int bar(char *A, int n);
char x;
l1:
bar(&x, 1);
- // O2: @llvm.lifetime.start(i64 5
- // O2: @llvm.lifetime.end(i64 5
char y[5];
bar(y, 5);
goto l1;
// Infinite loop
- // O2-NOT: @llvm.lifetime.end(i64 1
+ // O2-NOT: @llvm.lifetime.end(
}
// CHECK-LABEL: @goto_bypass
L:
bar(&x, 1);
}
+
+// O2-LABEL: define i32 @jump_backward_over_declaration(
+// O2-NOT: call void @llvm.lifetime.{{.*}}(i64 4,
+
+extern void foo2(int p);
+
+int jump_backward_over_declaration(int a) {
+ int *p = 0;
+label1:
+ if (p) {
+ foo2(*p);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ int i = 999;
+ if (a != 2) {
+ p = &i;
+ goto label1;
+ }
+ return -1;
+}