[clang] Use different memory layout type for _BitInt(N) in LLVM IR (#91364)

There are two problems with _BitInt prior to this patch:
1. For at least some values of N, we cannot use LLVM's iN for th

[clang] Use different memory layout type for _BitInt(N) in LLVM IR (#91364)

There are two problems with _BitInt prior to this patch:
1. For at least some values of N, we cannot use LLVM's iN for the type
of struct elements, array elements, allocas, global variables, and so
on, because the LLVM layout for that type does not match the high-level
layout of _BitInt(N).
Example: Currently for i128:128 targets correct implementation is
possible either for __int128 or for _BitInt(129+) with lowering to iN,
but not both, since we have now correct implementation of __int128 in
place after a21abc7.
When this happens, opaque [M x i8] types used, where M =
sizeof(_BitInt(N)).
2. LLVM doesn't guarantee any particular extension behavior for integer
types that aren't a multiple of 8. For this reason, all _BitInt types
are now have in-memory representation that is a whole number of bytes.
I.e. for example _BitInt(17) now will have memory layout type i32.

This patch also introduces concept of load/store type and adds an API to
CodeGenTypes that returns the IR type that should be used for load and
store operations. This is particularly useful for the case when a
_BitInt ends up having array of bytes as memory layout type. For
_BitInt(N), let M = sizeof(_BitInt(N)), and let BITS = M * 8. Loads and
stores of iM would both (1) produce far better code from the backends
and (2) be far more optimizable by IR passes than loads and stores of [M
x i8].

Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/85139
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/83419

---------

Co-authored-by: John McCall <rjmccall@gmail.com>

show more ...

[CodeGen] Convert tests to opaque pointers (NFC)

Conversion performed using the script at:
https://gist.github.com/nikic/98357b71fd67756b0f064c9517b62a34

These are only tests where no manual fixup

[CodeGen] Convert tests to opaque pointers (NFC)

Conversion performed using the script at:
https://gist.github.com/nikic/98357b71fd67756b0f064c9517b62a34

These are only tests where no manual fixup was required.

show more ...

[OpaquePtrs][Clang] Add -no-opaque-pointers to tests (NFC)

This adds -no-opaque-pointers to clang tests whose output will
change when opaque pointers are enabled by default. This is
intended to be p

[OpaquePtrs][Clang] Add -no-opaque-pointers to tests (NFC)

This adds -no-opaque-pointers to clang tests whose output will
change when opaque pointers are enabled by default. This is
intended to be part of the migration approach described in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/enabling-opaque-pointers-by-default/61322/9.

The patch has been produced by replacing %clang_cc1 with
%clang_cc1 -no-opaque-pointers for tests that fail with opaque
pointers enabled. Worth noting that this doesn't cover all tests,
there's a remaining ~40 tests not using %clang_cc1 that will need
a followup change.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123115

show more ...

Introduce _BitInt, deprecate _ExtInt

WG14 adopted the _ExtInt feature from Clang for C23, but renamed the
type to be _BitInt. This patch does the vast majority of the work to
rename _ExtInt to _BitI

Introduce _BitInt, deprecate _ExtInt

WG14 adopted the _ExtInt feature from Clang for C23, but renamed the
type to be _BitInt. This patch does the vast majority of the work to
rename _ExtInt to _BitInt, which accounts for most of its size. The new
type is exposed in older C modes and all C++ modes as a conforming
extension. However, there are functional changes worth calling out:

* Deprecates _ExtInt with a fix-it to help users migrate to _BitInt.
* Updates the mangling for the type.
* Updates the documentation and adds a release note to warn users what
is going on.
* Adds new diagnostics for use of _BitInt to call out when it's used as
a Clang extension or as a pre-C23 compatibility concern.
* Adds new tests for the new diagnostic behaviors.

I want to call out the ABI break specifically. We do not believe that
this break will cause a significant imposition for early adopters of
the feature, and so this is being done as a full break. If it turns out
there are critical uses where recompilation is not an option for some
reason, we can consider using ABI tags to ease the transition.

show more ...

[test] Add {{.*}} to make ELF tests immune to dso_local/dso_preemptable/(none) differences

For a default visibility external linkage definition, dso_local is set for ELF
-fno-pic/-fpie and COFF and

[test] Add {{.*}} to make ELF tests immune to dso_local/dso_preemptable/(none) differences

For a default visibility external linkage definition, dso_local is set for ELF
-fno-pic/-fpie and COFF and Mach-O. Since default clang -cc1 for ELF is similar
to -fpic ("PIC Level" is not set), this nuance causes unneeded binary format differences.

To make emitted IR similar, ELF -cc1 -fpic will default to -fno-semantic-interposition,
which sets dso_local for default visibility external linkage definitions.

To make this flip smooth and enable future (dso_local as definition default),
this patch replaces (function) `define ` with `define{{.*}} `,
(variable/constant/alias) `= ` with `={{.*}} `, or inserts appropriate `{{.*}} `.

show more ...

Implement _ExtInt ABI for all ABIs in Clang, enable type for ABIs

This is the result of an audit of all of the ABIs in clang to implement
and enable the type for those targets.

Additionally, this f

Implement _ExtInt ABI for all ABIs in Clang, enable type for ABIs

This is the result of an audit of all of the ABIs in clang to implement
and enable the type for those targets.

Additionally, this finds an issue with integer-promotion passing for a
few platforms when using _ExtInt of < int, so this also corrects that
resulting in signext/zeroext being on a params of those types in some
platforms.

Differential Revisions: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79118

show more ...

Fix x86/x86_64 calling convention for _ExtInt

After speaking with Craig Topper about some recent defects, he pointed
out that _ExtInts should be passed indirectly if larger than the largest
int regi

Fix x86/x86_64 calling convention for _ExtInt

After speaking with Craig Topper about some recent defects, he pointed
out that _ExtInts should be passed indirectly if larger than the largest
int register, and like ints when smaller than that. This patch
implements that.

Note that this changed the way vaargs worked quite a bit, but they still
work.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78785

show more ...

Reland Implement _ExtInt as an extended int type specifier.

I fixed the LLDB issue, so re-applying the patch.

This reverts commit a4b88c044980337bb14390be654fe76864aa60ec.

Implement _ExtInt as an extended int type specifier.

Introduction/Motivation:
LLVM-IR supports integers of non-power-of-2 bitwidth, in the iN syntax.
Integers of non-power-of-two aren't particularly

Implement _ExtInt as an extended int type specifier.

Introduction/Motivation:
LLVM-IR supports integers of non-power-of-2 bitwidth, in the iN syntax.
Integers of non-power-of-two aren't particularly interesting or useful
on most hardware, so much so that no language in Clang has been
motivated to expose it before.

However, in the case of FPGA hardware normal integer types where the
full bitwidth isn't used, is extremely wasteful and has severe
performance/space concerns. Because of this, Intel has introduced this
functionality in the High Level Synthesis compiler[0]
under the name "Arbitrary Precision Integer" (ap_int for short). This
has been extremely useful and effective for our users, permitting them
to optimize their storage and operation space on an architecture where
both can be extremely expensive.

We are proposing upstreaming a more palatable version of this to the
community, in the form of this proposal and accompanying patch. We are
proposing the syntax _ExtInt(N). We intend to propose this to the WG14
committee[1], and the underscore-capital seems like the active direction
for a WG14 paper's acceptance. An alternative that Richard Smith
suggested on the initial review was __int(N), however we believe that
is much less acceptable by WG14. We considered _Int, however _Int is
used as an identifier in libstdc++ and there is no good way to fall
back to an identifier (since _Int(5) is indistinguishable from an
unnamed initializer of a template type named _Int).

[0]https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/software/programmable/quartus-prime/hls-compiler.html)
[1]http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2472.pdf

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73967

show more ...