Compatibility fixes for LLVM 3.5 #21588
Conversation
This commit introduce a third parameter for compatible_ifn!, as new intrinsics are being added in recent LLVM releases and there is no need to hardcode a specific case. Signed-off-by: Luca Bruno <[email protected]>
|
r? @brson (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
| compatible_ifn!("llvm.copysign.f64", copysign(t_f64, t_f64) -> t_f64, 4); | ||
| compatible_ifn!("llvm.round.f32", roundf(t_f32) -> t_f32, 4); | ||
| compatible_ifn!("llvm.round.f64", round(t_f64) -> t_f64, 4); | ||
| compatible_ifn!("llvm.assume", fn(i1) -> void, 6); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suspect this isn't quite right, unfortunately; it seems like it might be declaring a substitute C function with signature void fn(i1). (I.e. the compatible_ifn! macro has a different syntax.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, ouch sorry. I didn't notice the difference in what the two macros expect as the second parameter.
lucab
force-pushed
the
lucab/stable-llvm-compat
branch
from
260a406
to
f85e825
Compare
|
In turn, this seems to trigger an assertion in I was inclined to blame myself for something I've forgotten to touch, but it looks like the same ICE already surfaced before in #2235, so I am a bit unsure... |
|
Hm well the ICE may be related to some odd LLVM different, but we can probably diagnose after this lands, this is definitely good to land for now. Thanks! |
|
@bors: r+ f85e825 rollup |
|
Ok, I'll open a separate ticket for the ICE then, thanks. |
Signed-off-by: Luca Bruno <[email protected]>
EngineBuilder signature has changed in LLVM 3.6, as the interface was not move-based in previous releases. Signed-off-by: Luca Bruno <[email protected]>
lucab
force-pushed
the
lucab/stable-llvm-compat
branch
from
f85e825
to
18f8d35
Compare
|
Mmmh, however I just realized that my fix was incomplete/incorrect as I was mapping "llvm.assume" to a non-existing "void assume(bool)" C function. Rebased a commit to introduce a stub function. However, in the ligth of #21620, I wonder if merging this PR makes sense anymore. |
|
Hm we'd probably prefer to lower it to a noop instead of a call to an actual function (as that may end up hindering optimizations). You've got a good point about #21620 though, so I think for now we can just close in favor of that. Thanks for investigating though! |
This fixes building with a system-installed LLVM 3.5 and also closes #20010