[IR] Don't allow label arguments #137799
Merged
[IR] Don't allow label arguments #137799
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
We currently accept label arguments to inline asm calls. Remove this in favor of callbr, or at least the use of blockaddress. I didn't bother implementing bitcode upgrade support for this, as we just have one very old test for this functionality, but I can add it if desired.
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-x86 @llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-ir Author: Nikita Popov (nikic) ChangesWe currently accept label arguments to inline asm calls. This support predates both blockaddresses and callbr and is only covered by one X86 test. Remove it in favor of callbr (or at least blockaddress, though that cannot guarantee correct codegen, just like using block labels directory can't). I didn't bother implementing bitcode upgrade support for this, but I can add it if desired. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137799.diff 8 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp b/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp
index 370d124dc42b4..dd37d9b9e3796 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp
@@ -3072,6 +3072,8 @@ bool LLParser::parseParameterList(SmallVectorImpl<ParamInfo> &ArgList,
Value *V;
if (parseType(ArgTy, ArgLoc))
return true;
+ if (!FunctionType::isValidArgumentType(ArgTy))
+ return error(ArgLoc, "invalid type for function argument");
AttrBuilder ArgAttrs(M->getContext());
@@ -3381,7 +3383,7 @@ bool LLParser::parseArgumentList(SmallVectorImpl<ArgInfo> &ArgList,
CurValID = ArgID + 1;
}
- if (!ArgTy->isFirstClassType())
+ if (!FunctionType::isValidArgumentType(ArgTy))
return error(TypeLoc, "invalid type for function argument");
ArgList.emplace_back(TypeLoc, ArgTy,
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriter.cpp b/llvm/lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriter.cpp
index 73bed85c65b3d..5226db9db1e03 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriter.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriter.cpp
@@ -3488,13 +3488,8 @@ void ModuleBitcodeWriter::writeInstruction(const Instruction &I,
pushValueAndType(CI.getCalledOperand(), InstID, Vals); // Callee
// Emit value #'s for the fixed parameters.
- for (unsigned i = 0, e = FTy->getNumParams(); i != e; ++i) {
- // Check for labels (can happen with asm labels).
- if (FTy->getParamType(i)->isLabelTy())
- Vals.push_back(VE.getValueID(CI.getArgOperand(i)));
- else
- pushValue(CI.getArgOperand(i), InstID, Vals); // fixed param.
- }
+ for (unsigned i = 0, e = FTy->getNumParams(); i != e; ++i)
+ pushValue(CI.getArgOperand(i), InstID, Vals); // fixed param.
// Emit type/value pairs for varargs params.
if (FTy->isVarArg()) {
diff --git a/llvm/lib/IR/Type.cpp b/llvm/lib/IR/Type.cpp
index 884609e734298..1c68b173364f9 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/IR/Type.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/IR/Type.cpp
@@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ bool FunctionType::isValidReturnType(Type *RetTy) {
}
bool FunctionType::isValidArgumentType(Type *ArgTy) {
- return ArgTy->isFirstClassType();
+ return ArgTy->isFirstClassType() && !ArgTy->isLabelTy();
}
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
diff --git a/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp b/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp
index 262e7022099d7..28ba944d8ede3 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp
@@ -2934,8 +2934,6 @@ void Verifier::visitFunction(const Function &F) {
FT->getParamType(i));
Check(Arg.getType()->isFirstClassType(),
"Function arguments must have first-class types!", &Arg);
- Check(!Arg.getType()->isLabelTy(),
- "Function argument cannot be of label type!", &Arg, &F);
if (!IsIntrinsic) {
Check(!Arg.getType()->isMetadataTy(),
"Function takes metadata but isn't an intrinsic", &Arg, &F);
diff --git a/llvm/test/Assembler/invalid-label-call-arg.ll b/llvm/test/Assembler/invalid-label-call-arg.ll
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..575ec6b05e38e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/Assembler/invalid-label-call-arg.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+; RUN: not llvm-as < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+
+; CHECK: invalid type for function argument
+define void @test() {
+bb:
+ call void asm "", ""(label %bb)
+ ret void
+}
+
diff --git a/llvm/test/Assembler/invalid-label.ll b/llvm/test/Assembler/invalid-label.ll
index 33dc63610aae3..ae464b362135b 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Assembler/invalid-label.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Assembler/invalid-label.ll
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
; RUN: FileCheck %s < %t
; Test the case where an invalid label name is used
-; CHECK: unable to create block named 'bb'
+; CHECK: invalid type for function argument
define void @test(label %bb) {
bb:
diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/asm-block-labels.ll b/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/asm-block-labels.ll
index 44bb7518ab6ee..fd78c793fa73e 100644
--- a/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/asm-block-labels.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/asm-block-labels.ll
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ entry:
call void asm sideeffect "int $$1", "~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{memory}"( )
call void asm sideeffect ".file \22block12.c\22", "~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"( )
call void asm sideeffect ".line 2", "~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"( )
- call void asm sideeffect "brl ${0:l}", "X,~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{memory}"( label %"LASM$foo" )
+ call void asm sideeffect "brl ${0:l}", "X,~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{memory}"(ptr blockaddress(@bar, %"LASM$foo"))
br label %return
return: ; preds = %"LASM$foo"
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ define void @baz() {
entry:
call void asm sideeffect ".file \22block12.c\22", "~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"( )
call void asm sideeffect ".line 3", "~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"( )
- call void asm sideeffect "brl ${0:l}", "X,~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{memory}"( label %"LASM$foo" )
+ call void asm sideeffect "brl ${0:l}", "X,~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{memory}"(ptr blockaddress(@baz, %"LASM$foo"))
call void asm sideeffect ".file \22block12.c\22", "~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"( )
call void asm sideeffect ".line 4", "~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"( )
call void asm sideeffect "int $$1", "~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{memory}"( )
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ return: ; preds = %"LASM$foo"
define void @quux() {
entry:
- call void asm sideeffect inteldialect "brl ${0:l}", "X,~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{memory}"( label %"LASM$foo" )
+ call void asm sideeffect inteldialect "brl ${0:l}", "X,~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{memory}"(ptr blockaddress(@quux, %"LASM$foo"))
br label %"LASM$foo"
"LASM$foo": ; preds = %entry
diff --git a/llvm/test/Verifier/invalid-label-param.ll b/llvm/test/Verifier/invalid-label-param.ll
index c89ce99ce1e9f..92d8b80086dcb 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Verifier/invalid-label-param.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Verifier/invalid-label-param.ll
@@ -7,8 +7,4 @@ define void @invalid_arg_type(i32 %0) {
}
declare void @foo(label)
-; CHECK: Function argument cannot be of label type!
-; CHECK-NEXT: label %0
-; CHECK-NEXT: ptr @foo
-
-
+; CHECK: invalid type for function argument
|
nikic
added a commit
to nikic/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 30, 2025
After llvm#137799 and llvm#137816, instruction uses of BasicBlocks are always terminators, so assert that instead of checking it.
nikic
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 30, 2025
IanWood1
pushed a commit
to IanWood1/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2025
We currently accept label arguments to inline asm calls. This support predates both blockaddresses and callbr and is only covered by one X86 test. Remove it in favor of callbr (or at least blockaddress, though that cannot guarantee correct codegen, just like using block labels directly can't). I didn't bother implementing bitcode upgrade support for this, but I can add it if desired.
IanWood1
pushed a commit
to IanWood1/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2025
After llvm#137799 and llvm#137816, instruction uses of BasicBlocks are always terminators, so assert that instead of checking it.
IanWood1
pushed a commit
to IanWood1/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2025
We currently accept label arguments to inline asm calls. This support predates both blockaddresses and callbr and is only covered by one X86 test. Remove it in favor of callbr (or at least blockaddress, though that cannot guarantee correct codegen, just like using block labels directly can't). I didn't bother implementing bitcode upgrade support for this, but I can add it if desired.
IanWood1
pushed a commit
to IanWood1/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2025
After llvm#137799 and llvm#137816, instruction uses of BasicBlocks are always terminators, so assert that instead of checking it.
IanWood1
pushed a commit
to IanWood1/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2025
We currently accept label arguments to inline asm calls. This support predates both blockaddresses and callbr and is only covered by one X86 test. Remove it in favor of callbr (or at least blockaddress, though that cannot guarantee correct codegen, just like using block labels directly can't). I didn't bother implementing bitcode upgrade support for this, but I can add it if desired.
IanWood1
pushed a commit
to IanWood1/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2025
After llvm#137799 and llvm#137816, instruction uses of BasicBlocks are always terminators, so assert that instead of checking it.
llvm-sync bot
pushed a commit
to arm/arm-toolchain
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2025
…7931) After llvm/llvm-project#137799 and llvm/llvm-project#137816, instruction uses of BasicBlocks are always terminators, so assert that instead of checking it.
GeorgeARM
pushed a commit
to GeorgeARM/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
May 7, 2025
We currently accept label arguments to inline asm calls. This support predates both blockaddresses and callbr and is only covered by one X86 test. Remove it in favor of callbr (or at least blockaddress, though that cannot guarantee correct codegen, just like using block labels directly can't). I didn't bother implementing bitcode upgrade support for this, but I can add it if desired.
GeorgeARM
pushed a commit
to GeorgeARM/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
May 7, 2025
After llvm#137799 and llvm#137816, instruction uses of BasicBlocks are always terminators, so assert that instead of checking it.
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.
We currently accept label arguments to inline asm calls. This support predates both blockaddresses and callbr and is only covered by one X86 test. Remove it in favor of callbr (or at least blockaddress, though that cannot guarantee correct codegen, just like using block labels directly can't).
I didn't bother implementing bitcode upgrade support for this, but I can add it if desired.