Request to review patch for bug #14792

http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14792

Problem:
In the i386 ABI Page 3-10, it said that the stack is aligned. However, the two example code show that does not handle the alignment correctly when using variadic function. For example, if the size of the first argument is 17, the overflow_arg_area in va_list will be set to “address of first argument + 16” instead of “address of first argument + 24” after calling va_start.
In addition, #6636 showed the same problem because in AMD64, arguments is passed by register at first, then pass by memory when run out of register (AMD64 ABI 3.5.7 rule 10).

Why this problem happened?
When calling va_start to set va_list, overflow_arg_area is not set correctly. To set the overflow_arg_area correctly, we need to get the FrameIndex correctly. Now, here comes the problem, llvm doesn’t handle it correctly. It accounts for StackSize to compute the FrameIndex, and if the StackSize is not aligned, it will compute the wrong FrameIndex. As a result overflow_arg_area will not be set correctly.

My Solution:

  1. Record the Align if it is located in Memory.
  2. If it is variadic function and needs to set FrameIndex, adjust the stacksize.

Please read http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html . In
particular, patches should be sent to llvm-commits, and patches should
generally include a regression test.

In terms of the code, you might want to consider using llvm::RoundUpToAlignment.

-Eli

Thank for your suggestion.

I have tried to use GetAlignedArgumentStackSize.
It is so strange that this function may output uncorrectly.
For example, the StackSize will be 40 when handling the third function call
in main.
If I modified the this function, it will fail one test.
I wonder this may be another bug in llvm......
And that's why I didn't use GetAlignedArgumentStackSize previously.

Thank you!

I'm sorry, I'm not that familiar with the code. A brief look tells me
that it's likely none of the patches are quite right;
http://llvm.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=10897 looks closer, but still
not quite right.

-Eli

Hi All,

Please find enclosed an updated and simplified patch along with a additional test for properly aligned variadic arguments.
Tom

variadicAlignment.patch (2.48 KB)