Skip to content

PR for llvm/llvm-project#53567 #3

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Feb 7, 2022
Merged

PR for llvm/llvm-project#53567 #3

merged 11 commits into from
Feb 7, 2022

Conversation

llvmbot
Copy link
Owner

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Feb 5, 2022

resolves llvm#53567

ldionne and others added 11 commits February 4, 2022 15:26
For the LLVM 14 release, don't ship incomplete features (currently
ranges and format) by default. If some vendors want to ship those
features, they can override the CMake option manually. This is
consistent with what we did for LLVM 13.

Note that this patch is only aimed towards the release/14.x branch.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118901
…omplete type.

var-const points out that `ranges::begin` is (non-normatively
but explicitly) always supposed to return a `std::input_or_output_iterator`,
and `Incomplete*` is not a `std::input_or_output_iterator` because it
has no `operator++`. Therefore, we should never return `Incomplete*`
from `ranges::begin(x)`, even when `x` is `Incomplete(&)[]`. Instead,
just SFINAE away.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118963

(cherry picked from commit cc1d02b)
Fix build for Linux musl.

Reviewed By: #sanitizers, dvyukov

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118970

(cherry picked from commit 9d1857f)
-fprofile-use=/-fprofile-sample-use= compiles may produce REL-format
.rel.llvm.call-graph-profile even if the prevailing format is RELA on AArch64.
Add R_AARCH64_NONE to getImplicitAddend to fix this linker error:

```
ld.lld: error: internal linker error: cannot read addend for relocation R_AARCH64_NONE
PLEASE submit a bug report to https://crbug.com and run tools/clang/scripts/process_crashreports.py (only works inside Google) which will upload a report and include the crash backtrace.
```

(cherry picked from commit f457863)
…NONE/R_X86_64_NONE

Similar to f457863

(cherry picked from commit 3fd3095)
llvm#53567

The following source

```
namespace A {

template <int N> struct Foo<char[N]> {
  void foo() { std::cout << "Bar"; }
}; // namespace A
```

is incorrectly formatted as:

```
namespace A {

template <int N> struct Foo<char[N]>{void foo(){std::cout << "Bar";
}
}
; // namespace A
```

This looks to be caused by llvm@5c2e7c9

Reviewed By: curdeius

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118911

(cherry picked from commit 23fc20e)
@llvmbot llvmbot merged this pull request into release/14.x Feb 7, 2022
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 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)
llvmbot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 6, 2025
llvm#138091)

Check this error for more context
(https://github.com/compiler-research/CppInterOp/actions/runs/14749797085/job/41407625681?pr=491#step:10:531)

This fails with
```
* thread #1, name = 'CppInterOpTests', stop reason = signal SIGSEGV: address not mapped to object (fault address: 0x55500356d6d3)
  * frame #0: 0x00007fffee41cfe3 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::PragmaNamespace::~PragmaNamespace() + 99
    frame #1: 0x00007fffee435666 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::Preprocessor::~Preprocessor() + 3830
    frame #2: 0x00007fffee20917a libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitstd::_Sp_counted_base<(__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2>::_M_release() + 58
    frame #3: 0x00007fffee224796 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::CompilerInstance::~CompilerInstance() + 838
    frame #4: 0x00007fffee22494d libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::CompilerInstance::~CompilerInstance() + 13
    frame #5: 0x00007fffed95ec62 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::IncrementalCUDADeviceParser::~IncrementalCUDADeviceParser() + 98
    frame #6: 0x00007fffed9551b6 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::Interpreter::~Interpreter() + 102
    frame #7: 0x00007fffed95598d libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::Interpreter::~Interpreter() + 13
    frame #8: 0x00007fffed9181e7 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitcompat::createClangInterpreter(std::vector<char const*, std::allocator<char const*>>&) + 2919
```

Problem :

1) The destructor currently handles no clearance for the DeviceParser
and the DeviceAct. We currently only have this

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/976493822443c52a71ed3c67aaca9a555b20c55d/clang/lib/Interpreter/Interpreter.cpp#L416-L419

2) The ownership for DeviceCI currently is present in
IncrementalCudaDeviceParser. But this should be similar to how the
combination for hostCI, hostAction and hostParser are managed by the
Interpreter. As on master the DeviceAct and DeviceParser are managed by
the Interpreter but not DeviceCI. This is problematic because :
IncrementalParser holds a Sema& which points into the DeviceCI. On
master, DeviceCI is destroyed before the base class ~IncrementalParser()
runs, causing Parser::reset() to access a dangling Sema (and as Sema
holds a reference to Preprocessor which owns PragmaNamespace) we see
this
```
  * frame #0: 0x00007fffee41cfe3 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::PragmaNamespace::~PragmaNamespace() + 99
    frame #1: 0x00007fffee435666 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::Preprocessor::~Preprocessor() + 3830

```

(cherry picked from commit 529b6fc)
llvmbot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 9, 2025
llvm#138091)

Check this error for more context
(https://github.com/compiler-research/CppInterOp/actions/runs/14749797085/job/41407625681?pr=491#step:10:531)

This fails with
```
* thread #1, name = 'CppInterOpTests', stop reason = signal SIGSEGV: address not mapped to object (fault address: 0x55500356d6d3)
  * frame #0: 0x00007fffee41cfe3 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::PragmaNamespace::~PragmaNamespace() + 99
    frame #1: 0x00007fffee435666 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::Preprocessor::~Preprocessor() + 3830
    frame #2: 0x00007fffee20917a libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitstd::_Sp_counted_base<(__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2>::_M_release() + 58
    frame #3: 0x00007fffee224796 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::CompilerInstance::~CompilerInstance() + 838
    frame #4: 0x00007fffee22494d libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::CompilerInstance::~CompilerInstance() + 13
    frame #5: 0x00007fffed95ec62 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::IncrementalCUDADeviceParser::~IncrementalCUDADeviceParser() + 98
    frame #6: 0x00007fffed9551b6 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::Interpreter::~Interpreter() + 102
    frame #7: 0x00007fffed95598d libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::Interpreter::~Interpreter() + 13
    frame #8: 0x00007fffed9181e7 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitcompat::createClangInterpreter(std::vector<char const*, std::allocator<char const*>>&) + 2919
```

Problem :

1) The destructor currently handles no clearance for the DeviceParser
and the DeviceAct. We currently only have this

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/976493822443c52a71ed3c67aaca9a555b20c55d/clang/lib/Interpreter/Interpreter.cpp#L416-L419

2) The ownership for DeviceCI currently is present in
IncrementalCudaDeviceParser. But this should be similar to how the
combination for hostCI, hostAction and hostParser are managed by the
Interpreter. As on master the DeviceAct and DeviceParser are managed by
the Interpreter but not DeviceCI. This is problematic because :
IncrementalParser holds a Sema& which points into the DeviceCI. On
master, DeviceCI is destroyed before the base class ~IncrementalParser()
runs, causing Parser::reset() to access a dangling Sema (and as Sema
holds a reference to Preprocessor which owns PragmaNamespace) we see
this
```
  * frame #0: 0x00007fffee41cfe3 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::PragmaNamespace::~PragmaNamespace() + 99
    frame #1: 0x00007fffee435666 libclangCppInterOp.so.21.0gitclang::Preprocessor::~Preprocessor() + 3830

```

(cherry picked from commit 529b6fc)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants