Try E2E CUDA on fork #3

npmiller · 2024-05-07T09:28:16Z

No description provided.

…ined member functions & member function templates (#88963) Consider the following snippet from the discussion of CWG2847 on the core reflector: ``` template<typename T> concept C = sizeof(T) <= sizeof(long); template<typename T> struct A { template<typename U> void f(U) requires C<U>; // #1, declares a function template void g() requires C<T>; // #2, declares a function template<> void f(char); // #3, an explicit specialization of a function template that declares a function }; template<> template<typename U> void A<short>::f(U) requires C<U>; // intel#4, an explicit specialization of a function template that declares a function template template<> template<> void A<int>::f(int); // intel#5, an explicit specialization of a function template that declares a function template<> void A<long>::g(); // intel#6, an explicit specialization of a function that declares a function ``` A number of problems exist: - Clang rejects `intel#4` because the trailing _requires-clause_ has `U` substituted with the wrong template parameter depth when `Sema::AreConstraintExpressionsEqual` is called to determine whether it matches the trailing _requires-clause_ of the implicitly instantiated function template. - Clang rejects `intel#5` because the function template specialization instantiated from `A<int>::f` has a trailing _requires-clause_, but `intel#5` does not (nor can it have one as it isn't a templated function). - Clang rejects `intel#6` for the same reasons it rejects `intel#5`. This patch resolves these issues by making the following changes: - To fix `intel#4`, `Sema::AreConstraintExpressionsEqual` is passed `FunctionTemplateDecl`s when comparing the trailing _requires-clauses_ of `intel#4` and the function template instantiated from `#1`. - To fix `intel#5` and `intel#6`, the trailing _requires-clauses_ are not compared for explicit specializations that declare functions. In addition to these changes, `CheckMemberSpecialization` now considers constraint satisfaction/constraint partial ordering when determining which member function is specialized by an explicit specialization of a member function for an implicit instantiation of a class template (we previously would select the first function that has the same type as the explicit specialization). With constraints taken under consideration, we match EDG's behavior for these declarations.

...which caused issues like > ==42==ERROR: AddressSanitizer failed to deallocate 0x32 (50) bytes at address 0x117e0000 (error code: 28) > ==42==Cannot dump memory map on emscriptenAddressSanitizer: CHECK failed: sanitizer_common.cpp:81 "((0 && "unable to unmmap")) != (0)" (0x0, 0x0) (tid=288045824) > #0 0x14f73b0c in __asan::CheckUnwind()+0x14f73b0c (this.program+0x14f73b0c) > #1 0x14f8a3c2 in __sanitizer::CheckFailed(char const*, int, char const*, unsigned long long, unsigned long long)+0x14f8a3c2 (this.program+0x14f8a3c2) > #2 0x14f7d6e1 in __sanitizer::ReportMunmapFailureAndDie(void*, unsigned long, int, bool)+0x14f7d6e1 (this.program+0x14f7d6e1) > #3 0x14f81fbd in __sanitizer::UnmapOrDie(void*, unsigned long)+0x14f81fbd (this.program+0x14f81fbd) > intel#4 0x14f875df in __sanitizer::SuppressionContext::ParseFromFile(char const*)+0x14f875df (this.program+0x14f875df) > intel#5 0x14f74eab in __asan::InitializeSuppressions()+0x14f74eab (this.program+0x14f74eab) > intel#6 0x14f73a1a in __asan::AsanInitInternal()+0x14f73a1a (this.program+0x14f73a1a) when trying to use an ASan suppressions file under Emscripten: Even though it would be considered OK by SUSv4, the Emscripten runtime states "We don't support partial munmapping" (see <emscripten-core/emscripten@f4115eb> "Implement MAP_ANONYMOUS on top of malloc in STANDALONE_WASM mode (intel#16289)"). Co-authored-by: Stephan Bergmann <[email protected]>

…erSize (#67657)" This reverts commit f0b3654. This commit triggers UB by reading an uninitialized variable. `UP.PartialThreshold` is used uninitialized in `getUnrollingPreferences()` when it is called from `LoopVectorizationPlanner::executePlan()`. In this case the `UP` variable is created on the stack and its fields are not initialized. ``` ==8802==WARNING: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value #0 0x557c0b081b99 in llvm::BasicTTIImplBase<llvm::X86TTIImpl>::getUnrollingPreferences(llvm::Loop*, llvm::ScalarEvolution&, llvm::TargetTransformInfo::UnrollingPreferences&, llvm::OptimizationRemarkEmitter*) llvm-project/llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/BasicTTIImpl.h #1 0x557c0b07a40c in llvm::TargetTransformInfo::Model<llvm::X86TTIImpl>::getUnrollingPreferences(llvm::Loop*, llvm::ScalarEvolution&, llvm::TargetTransformInfo::UnrollingPreferences&, llvm::OptimizationRemarkEmitter*) llvm-project/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/TargetTransformInfo.h:2277:17 #2 0x557c0f5d69ee in llvm::TargetTransformInfo::getUnrollingPreferences(llvm::Loop*, llvm::ScalarEvolution&, llvm::TargetTransformInfo::UnrollingPreferences&, llvm::OptimizationRemarkEmitter*) const llvm-project/llvm/lib/Analysis/TargetTransformInfo.cpp:387:19 #3 0x557c0e6b96a0 in llvm::LoopVectorizationPlanner::executePlan(llvm::ElementCount, unsigned int, llvm::VPlan&, llvm::InnerLoopVectorizer&, llvm::DominatorTree*, bool, llvm::DenseMap<llvm::SCEV const*, llvm::Value*, llvm::DenseMapInfo<llvm::SCEV const*, void>, llvm::detail::DenseMapPair<llvm::SCEV const*, llvm::Value*>> const*) llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:7624:7 intel#4 0x557c0e6e4b63 in llvm::LoopVectorizePass::processLoop(llvm::Loop*) llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:10253:13 intel#5 0x557c0e6f2429 in llvm::LoopVectorizePass::runImpl(llvm::Function&, llvm::ScalarEvolution&, llvm::LoopInfo&, llvm::TargetTransformInfo&, llvm::DominatorTree&, llvm::BlockFrequencyInfo*, llvm::TargetLibraryInfo*, llvm::DemandedBits&, llvm::AssumptionCache&, llvm::LoopAccessInfoManager&, llvm::OptimizationRemarkEmitter&, llvm::ProfileSummaryInfo*) llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:10344:30 intel#6 0x557c0e6f2f97 in llvm::LoopVectorizePass::run(llvm::Function&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Function>&) llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:10383:9 [...] Uninitialized value was created by an allocation of 'UP' in the stack frame #0 0x557c0e6b961e in llvm::LoopVectorizationPlanner::executePlan(llvm::ElementCount, unsigned int, llvm::VPlan&, llvm::InnerLoopVectorizer&, llvm::DominatorTree*, bool, llvm::DenseMap<llvm::SCEV const*, llvm::Value*, llvm::DenseMapInfo<llvm::SCEV const*, void>, llvm::detail::DenseMapPair<llvm::SCEV const*, llvm::Value*>> const*) llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:7623:3 ```

…linux (#99613) Examples of the output: ARM: ``` # ./a.out AddressSanitizer:DEADLYSIGNAL ================================================================= ==122==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address 0x0000007a (pc 0x76e13ac0 bp 0x7eb7fd00 sp 0x7eb7fcc8 T0) ==122==The signal is caused by a READ memory access. ==122==Hint: address points to the zero page. #0 0x76e13ac0 (/lib/libc.so.6+0x7cac0) #1 0x76dce680 in gsignal (/lib/libc.so.6+0x37680) #2 0x005c2250 (/root/a.out+0x145250) #3 0x76db982c (/lib/libc.so.6+0x2282c) intel#4 0x76db9918 in __libc_start_main (/lib/libc.so.6+0x22918) ==122==Register values: r0 = 0x00000000 r1 = 0x0000007a r2 = 0x0000000b r3 = 0x76d95020 r4 = 0x0000007a r5 = 0x00000001 r6 = 0x005dcc5c r7 = 0x0000010c r8 = 0x0000000b r9 = 0x76f9ece0 r10 = 0x00000000 r11 = 0x7eb7fd00 r12 = 0x76dce670 sp = 0x7eb7fcc8 lr = 0x76e13ab4 pc = 0x76e13ac0 AddressSanitizer can not provide additional info. SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: SEGV (/lib/libc.so.6+0x7cac0) ==122==ABORTING ``` AArch64: ``` # ./a.out UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer:DEADLYSIGNAL ==99==ERROR: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address 0x000000000063 (pc 0x007fbbbc5860 bp 0x007fcfdcb700 sp 0x007fcfdcb700 T99) ==99==The signal is caused by a UNKNOWN memory access. ==99==Hint: address points to the zero page. #0 0x007fbbbc5860 (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x82860) #1 0x007fbbb81578 (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x3e578) #2 0x00556051152c (/root/a.out+0x3152c) #3 0x007fbbb6e268 (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x2b268) intel#4 0x007fbbb6e344 (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x2b344) intel#5 0x0055604e45ec (/root/a.out+0x45ec) ==99==Register values: x0 = 0x0000000000000000 x1 = 0x0000000000000063 x2 = 0x000000000000000b x3 = 0x0000007fbbb41440 x4 = 0x0000007fbbb41580 x5 = 0x3669288942d44cce x6 = 0x0000000000000000 x7 = 0x00000055605110b0 x8 = 0x0000000000000083 x9 = 0x0000000000000000 x10 = 0x0000000000000000 x11 = 0x0000000000000000 x12 = 0x0000007fbbdb3360 x13 = 0x0000000000010000 x14 = 0x0000000000000039 x15 = 0x00000000004113a0 x16 = 0x0000007fbbb81560 x17 = 0x0000005560540138 x18 = 0x000000006474e552 x19 = 0x0000000000000063 x20 = 0x0000000000000001 x21 = 0x000000000000000b x22 = 0x0000005560511510 x23 = 0x0000007fcfdcb918 x24 = 0x0000007fbbdb1b50 x25 = 0x0000000000000000 x26 = 0x0000007fbbdb2000 x27 = 0x000000556053f858 x28 = 0x0000000000000000 fp = 0x0000007fcfdcb700 lr = 0x0000007fbbbc584c sp = 0x0000007fcfdcb700 UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer can not provide additional info. SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: SEGV (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x82860) ==99==ABORTING ```

github-actions · 2024-11-04T02:43:31Z

This pull request is stale because it has been open 180 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be automatically closed in 30 days.

Try E2E CUDA on fork

34e5729

npmiller had a problem deploying to aws May 7, 2024 09:28 — with GitHub Actions Failure

Test E2E

f3d3e3b

npmiller had a problem deploying to aws May 7, 2024 09:32 — with GitHub Actions Failure

github-actions bot added the Stale label Nov 4, 2024

npmiller closed this Nov 4, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Try E2E CUDA on fork #3

Try E2E CUDA on fork #3

npmiller commented May 7, 2024

github-actions bot commented Nov 4, 2024

Try E2E CUDA on fork #3

Try E2E CUDA on fork #3

Conversation

npmiller commented May 7, 2024

github-actions bot commented Nov 4, 2024