Since CL 391014, cmd/compile now requires the -p flag to be set the
build system. This CL changes it to initialize LocalPkg.Path to the
provided path, rather than relying on writing out `"".` into object
files and expecting cmd/link to substitute them.
However, this actually involved a rather long tail of fixes. Many have
already been submitted, but a few notable ones that have to land
simultaneously with changing LocalPkg:
1. When compiling package runtime, there are really two "runtime"
packages: types.LocalPkg (the source package itself) and
ir.Pkgs.Runtime (the compiler's internal representation, for synthetic
references). Previously, these ended up creating separate link
symbols (`"".xxx` and `runtime.xxx`, respectively), but now they both
end up as `runtime.xxx`, which causes lsym collisions (notably
inittask and funcsyms).
2. test/codegen tests need to be updated to expect symbols to be named
`command-line-arguments.xxx` rather than `"".foo`.
3. The issue20014 test case is sensitive to the sort order of field
tracking symbols. In particular, the local package now sorts to its
natural place in the list, rather than to the front.
Thanks to David Chase for helping track down all of the fixes needed
for this CL.
Updates #51734.
Change-Id: Iba3041cf7ad967d18c6e17922fa06ba11798b565
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/393715
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Run-TryBot: Matthew Dempsky <mdempsky@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gopher Robot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Cuong Manh Le <cuong.manhle.vn@gmail.com>
Backstop support for non-sse2 chips now that 387 is gone.
RELNOTE=yes
Change-Id: Ib10e69c4a3654c15a03568f93393437e1939e013
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/260017
Trust: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Go Bot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
My last 387 CL. So sad ... ... ... ... not!
Fixes#40255
Change-Id: I8d4ddb744b234b8adc735db2f7c3c7b6d8bbdfa4
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/258957
Trust: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Go Bot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Cherry Zhang <cherryyz@google.com>
They were missed as part of the refactoring to use a separate
addressing modes pass.
Fixes#40426
Change-Id: Ie0418b2fac4ba1ffe720644ac918f6d728d5e420
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/244859
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Cherry Zhang <cherryyz@google.com>
Benchmarking suggests that the combo instruction is notably slower,
at least in the places where we measure.
Updates #37955
Change-Id: I829f1975dd6edf38163128ba51d84604055512f4
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/228157
Run-TryBot: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Retrying CL 222782, with a fix that will hopefully stop the random crashing.
The issue with the previous CL is that it does pointer arithmetic
in a way that may briefly generate an out-of-bounds pointer. If an
interrupt happens to occur in that state, the referenced object may
be collected incorrectly.
Suppose there was code that did s[x+c]. The previous CL had a rule
to the effect of ptr + (x + c) -> c + (ptr + x). But ptr+x is not
guaranteed to point to the same object as ptr. In contrast,
ptr+(x+c) is guaranteed to point to the same object as ptr, because
we would have already checked that x+c is in bounds.
For example, strconv.trim used to have this code:
MOVZX -0x1(BX)(DX*1), BP
CMPL $0x30, AL
After CL 222782, it had this code:
LEAL 0(BX)(DX*1), BP
CMPB $0x30, -0x1(BP)
An interrupt between those last two instructions could see BP pointing
outside the backing store of the slice involved.
It's really hard to actually demonstrate a bug. First, you need to
have an interrupt occur at exactly the right time. Then, there must
be no other pointers to the object in question. Since the interrupted
frame will be scanned conservatively, there can't even be a dead
pointer in another register or on the stack. (In the example above,
a bug can't happen because BX still holds the original pointer.)
Then, the object in question needs to be collected (or at least
scanned?) before the interrupted code continues.
This CL needs to handle load combining somewhat differently than CL 222782
because of the new restriction on arithmetic. That's the only real
difference (other than removing the bad rules) from that old CL.
This bug is also present in the amd64 rewrite rules, and we haven't
seen any crashing as a result. I will fix up that code similarly to
this one in a separate CL.
Update #37881
Change-Id: I5f0d584d9bef4696bfe89a61ef0a27c8d507329f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/225798
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Cherry Zhang <cherryyz@google.com>
This reverts commit CL 222782.
Reason for revert: Reverting to see if 386 errors go away
Update #37881
Change-Id: I74f287404c52414db1b6ff1649effa4ed9e5cc0c
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/225218
Reviewed-by: Bryan C. Mills <bcmills@google.com>
Rolling back portions of CL 222782 to see if that helps
issue #37881 any.
Update #37881
Change-Id: I9cc3ff8c469fa5e4b22daec715d04148033f46f7
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/224837
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Bryan C. Mills <bcmills@google.com>
Use a separate compiler pass to introduce complicated x86 addressing
modes. Loads in the normal architecture rules (for x86 and all other
platforms) can have constant offsets (AuxInt values) and symbols (Aux
values), but no more.
The complex addressing modes (x+y, x+2*y, etc.) are introduced in a
separate pass that combines loads with LEAQx ops.
Organizing rewrites this way simplifies the number of rewrites
required, as there are lots of different rule orderings that have to
be specified to ensure these complex addressing modes are always found
if they are possible.
Update #36468
Change-Id: I5b4bf7b03a1e731d6dfeb9ef19b376175f3b4b44
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/217097
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
Unlike normal load+op opcodes, the load+compare opcode does
not clobber its non-load argument. Allow the load+compare merge
to happen even if the non-load argument is used elsewhere.
Noticed when investigating issue #28417.
Change-Id: Ibc48d1f2e06ae76034c59f453815d263e8ec7288
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/145097
Reviewed-by: Ainar Garipov <gugl.zadolbal@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Ben Shi <powerman1st@163.com>
Makes go binary smaller by 0.2%.
I noticed this in autogenerated equal methods, and there are
probably a lot of those.
Change-Id: I4e04eb3653fbceb9dd6a4eee97ceab1fa4d10b72
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/135379
Reviewed-by: Ilya Tocar <ilya.tocar@intel.com>
