PR for llvm/llvm-project#53580 #4
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
…operations Generate movprfx for floating point convert zeroing pseudo operations Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118617 (cherry picked from commit 6b73a4c)
llvmbot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2022
We experienced some deadlocks when we used multiple threads for logging using `scan-builds` intercept-build tool when we used multiple threads by e.g. logging `make -j16` ``` (gdb) bt #0 0x00007f2bb3aff110 in __lll_lock_wait () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0 #1 0x00007f2bb3af70a3 in pthread_mutex_lock () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0 #2 0x00007f2bb3d152e4 in ?? () #3 0x00007ffcc5f0cc80 in ?? () #4 0x00007f2bb3d2bf5b in ?? () from /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 #5 0x00007f2bb3b5da27 in ?? () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 #6 0x00007f2bb3b5dbe0 in exit () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 #7 0x00007f2bb3d144ee in ?? () #8 0x746e692f706d742f in ?? () #9 0x692d747065637265 in ?? () #10 0x2f653631326b3034 in ?? () #11 0x646d632e35353532 in ?? () #12 0x0000000000000000 in ?? () ``` I think the gcc's exit call caused the injected `libear.so` to be unloaded by the `ld`, which in turn called the `void on_unload() __attribute__((destructor))`. That tried to acquire an already locked mutex which was left locked in the `bear_report_call()` call, that probably encountered some error and returned early when it forgot to unlock the mutex. All of these are speculation since from the backtrace I could not verify if frames 2 and 3 are in fact corresponding to the `libear.so` module. But I think it's a fairly safe bet. So, hereby I'm releasing the held mutex on *all paths*, even if some failure happens. PS: I would use lock_guards, but it's C. Reviewed-by: NoQ Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118439 (cherry picked from commit d919d02)
tstellar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2022
We experienced some deadlocks when we used multiple threads for logging using `scan-builds` intercept-build tool when we used multiple threads by e.g. logging `make -j16` ``` (gdb) bt #0 0x00007f2bb3aff110 in __lll_lock_wait () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0 #1 0x00007f2bb3af70a3 in pthread_mutex_lock () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0 #2 0x00007f2bb3d152e4 in ?? () #3 0x00007ffcc5f0cc80 in ?? () #4 0x00007f2bb3d2bf5b in ?? () from /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 #5 0x00007f2bb3b5da27 in ?? () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 #6 0x00007f2bb3b5dbe0 in exit () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 #7 0x00007f2bb3d144ee in ?? () #8 0x746e692f706d742f in ?? () #9 0x692d747065637265 in ?? () #10 0x2f653631326b3034 in ?? () #11 0x646d632e35353532 in ?? () #12 0x0000000000000000 in ?? () ``` I think the gcc's exit call caused the injected `libear.so` to be unloaded by the `ld`, which in turn called the `void on_unload() __attribute__((destructor))`. That tried to acquire an already locked mutex which was left locked in the `bear_report_call()` call, that probably encountered some error and returned early when it forgot to unlock the mutex. All of these are speculation since from the backtrace I could not verify if frames 2 and 3 are in fact corresponding to the `libear.so` module. But I think it's a fairly safe bet. So, hereby I'm releasing the held mutex on *all paths*, even if some failure happens. PS: I would use lock_guards, but it's C. Reviewed-by: NoQ Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118439 (cherry picked from commit d919d02)
llvmbot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 24, 2024
…vm#75394) Calling one of pthread join/detach interceptor on an already joined/detached thread causes asserts such as: AddressSanitizer: CHECK failed: sanitizer_thread_arg_retval.cpp:56 "((t)) != (0)" (0x0, 0x0) (tid=1236094) #0 0x555555634f8b in __asan::CheckUnwind() compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_rtl.cpp:69:3 #1 0x55555564e06e in __sanitizer::CheckFailed(char const*, int, char const*, unsigned long long, unsigned long long) compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_termination.cpp:86:24 #2 0x5555556491df in __sanitizer::ThreadArgRetval::BeforeJoin(unsigned long) const compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_thread_arg_retval.cpp:56:3 #3 0x5555556198ed in Join<___interceptor_pthread_tryjoin_np(void*, void**)::<lambda()> > compiler-rt/lib/asan/../sanitizer_common/sanitizer_thread_arg_retval.h:74:26 #4 0x5555556198ed in pthread_tryjoin_np compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_interceptors.cpp:311:29 The assert are replaced by error codes.
llvmbot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
Somewhat confusingly a `SCEVMulExpr` is a `SCEVNAryExpr`, so can have > 2 operands. Previously, the vscale immediate matching did not check the number of operands of the `SCEVMulExpr`, so would ignore any operands after the first two. This led to incorrect codegen (and results) for ArmSME in IREE (https://github.com/iree-org/iree), which sometimes addresses things that are a `vscale * vscale` multiple away. The test added with this change shows an example reduced from IREE. The second write should be offset from the first `16 * vscale * vscale` (* 4 bytes), however, previously LSR dropped the second vscale and instead offset the write by `#4, mul vl`, which is an offset of `16 * vscale` (* 4 bytes). (cherry picked from commit 7fad04e)
tru
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
Somewhat confusingly a `SCEVMulExpr` is a `SCEVNAryExpr`, so can have > 2 operands. Previously, the vscale immediate matching did not check the number of operands of the `SCEVMulExpr`, so would ignore any operands after the first two. This led to incorrect codegen (and results) for ArmSME in IREE (https://github.com/iree-org/iree), which sometimes addresses things that are a `vscale * vscale` multiple away. The test added with this change shows an example reduced from IREE. The second write should be offset from the first `16 * vscale * vscale` (* 4 bytes), however, previously LSR dropped the second vscale and instead offset the write by `#4, mul vl`, which is an offset of `16 * vscale` (* 4 bytes). (cherry picked from commit 7fad04e)
llvmbot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 28, 2025
`clang-repl --cuda` was previously crashing with a segmentation fault, instead of reporting a clean error ``` (base) anutosh491@Anutoshs-MacBook-Air bin % ./clang-repl --cuda #0 0x0000000111da4fbc llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(llvm::raw_ostream&, int) (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libLLVM.dylib+0x150fbc) #1 0x0000000111da31dc llvm::sys::RunSignalHandlers() (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libLLVM.dylib+0x14f1dc) #2 0x0000000111da5628 SignalHandler(int) (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libLLVM.dylib+0x151628) #3 0x000000019b242de4 (/usr/lib/system/libsystem_platform.dylib+0x180482de4) #4 0x0000000107f638d0 clang::IncrementalCUDADeviceParser::IncrementalCUDADeviceParser(std::__1::unique_ptr<clang::CompilerInstance, std::__1::default_delete<clang::CompilerInstance>>, clang::CompilerInstance&, llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr<llvm::vfs::InMemoryFileSystem>, llvm::Error&, std::__1::list<clang::PartialTranslationUnit, std::__1::allocator<clang::PartialTranslationUnit>> const&) (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libclang-cpp.dylib+0x216b8d0) #5 0x0000000107f638d0 clang::IncrementalCUDADeviceParser::IncrementalCUDADeviceParser(std::__1::unique_ptr<clang::CompilerInstance, std::__1::default_delete<clang::CompilerInstance>>, clang::CompilerInstance&, llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr<llvm::vfs::InMemoryFileSystem>, llvm::Error&, std::__1::list<clang::PartialTranslationUnit, std::__1::allocator<clang::PartialTranslationUnit>> const&) (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libclang-cpp.dylib+0x216b8d0) #6 0x0000000107f6bac8 clang::Interpreter::createWithCUDA(std::__1::unique_ptr<clang::CompilerInstance, std::__1::default_delete<clang::CompilerInstance>>, std::__1::unique_ptr<clang::CompilerInstance, std::__1::default_delete<clang::CompilerInstance>>) (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libclang-cpp.dylib+0x2173ac8) #7 0x000000010206f8a8 main (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/bin/clang-repl+0x1000038a8) #8 0x000000019ae8c274 Segmentation fault: 11 ``` The underlying issue was that the `DeviceCompilerInstance` (used for device-side CUDA compilation) was never initialized with a `Sema`, which is required before constructing the `IncrementalCUDADeviceParser`. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/89687e6f383b742a3c6542dc673a84d9f82d02de/clang/lib/Interpreter/DeviceOffload.cpp#L32 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/89687e6f383b742a3c6542dc673a84d9f82d02de/clang/lib/Interpreter/IncrementalParser.cpp#L31 Unlike the host-side `CompilerInstance` which runs `ExecuteAction` inside the Interpreter constructor (thereby setting up Sema), the device-side CI was passed into the parser uninitialized, leading to an assertion or crash when accessing its internals. To fix this, I refactored the `Interpreter::create` method to include an optional `DeviceCI` parameter. If provided, we know we need to take care of this instance too. Only then do we construct the `IncrementalCUDADeviceParser`. (cherry picked from commit 21fb19f)
llvmbot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2025
`clang-repl --cuda` was previously crashing with a segmentation fault, instead of reporting a clean error ``` (base) anutosh491@Anutoshs-MacBook-Air bin % ./clang-repl --cuda #0 0x0000000111da4fbc llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(llvm::raw_ostream&, int) (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libLLVM.dylib+0x150fbc) #1 0x0000000111da31dc llvm::sys::RunSignalHandlers() (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libLLVM.dylib+0x14f1dc) #2 0x0000000111da5628 SignalHandler(int) (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libLLVM.dylib+0x151628) #3 0x000000019b242de4 (/usr/lib/system/libsystem_platform.dylib+0x180482de4) #4 0x0000000107f638d0 clang::IncrementalCUDADeviceParser::IncrementalCUDADeviceParser(std::__1::unique_ptr<clang::CompilerInstance, std::__1::default_delete<clang::CompilerInstance>>, clang::CompilerInstance&, llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr<llvm::vfs::InMemoryFileSystem>, llvm::Error&, std::__1::list<clang::PartialTranslationUnit, std::__1::allocator<clang::PartialTranslationUnit>> const&) (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libclang-cpp.dylib+0x216b8d0) #5 0x0000000107f638d0 clang::IncrementalCUDADeviceParser::IncrementalCUDADeviceParser(std::__1::unique_ptr<clang::CompilerInstance, std::__1::default_delete<clang::CompilerInstance>>, clang::CompilerInstance&, llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr<llvm::vfs::InMemoryFileSystem>, llvm::Error&, std::__1::list<clang::PartialTranslationUnit, std::__1::allocator<clang::PartialTranslationUnit>> const&) (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libclang-cpp.dylib+0x216b8d0) #6 0x0000000107f6bac8 clang::Interpreter::createWithCUDA(std::__1::unique_ptr<clang::CompilerInstance, std::__1::default_delete<clang::CompilerInstance>>, std::__1::unique_ptr<clang::CompilerInstance, std::__1::default_delete<clang::CompilerInstance>>) (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/lib/libclang-cpp.dylib+0x2173ac8) #7 0x000000010206f8a8 main (/opt/local/libexec/llvm-20/bin/clang-repl+0x1000038a8) #8 0x000000019ae8c274 Segmentation fault: 11 ``` The underlying issue was that the `DeviceCompilerInstance` (used for device-side CUDA compilation) was never initialized with a `Sema`, which is required before constructing the `IncrementalCUDADeviceParser`. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/89687e6f383b742a3c6542dc673a84d9f82d02de/clang/lib/Interpreter/DeviceOffload.cpp#L32 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/89687e6f383b742a3c6542dc673a84d9f82d02de/clang/lib/Interpreter/IncrementalParser.cpp#L31 Unlike the host-side `CompilerInstance` which runs `ExecuteAction` inside the Interpreter constructor (thereby setting up Sema), the device-side CI was passed into the parser uninitialized, leading to an assertion or crash when accessing its internals. To fix this, I refactored the `Interpreter::create` method to include an optional `DeviceCI` parameter. If provided, we know we need to take care of this instance too. Only then do we construct the `IncrementalCUDADeviceParser`. (cherry picked from commit 21fb19f)
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.
resolves llvm#53580