-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.5k
RuntimeLibcalls: Fix calling conv of win32 div libcalls #149098
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RuntimeLibcalls: Fix calling conv of win32 div libcalls #149098
Conversation
There's probably an existing test this should be added to, but our test coverage is really bad that this wasn't caught by one.
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-ir @llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-x86 Author: Matt Arsenault (arsenm) ChangesThere's probably an existing test this should be added to, Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/149098.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/include/llvm/IR/RuntimeLibcalls.td b/llvm/include/llvm/IR/RuntimeLibcalls.td
index 11926d4128fcf..f0297cd1a0873 100644
--- a/llvm/include/llvm/IR/RuntimeLibcalls.td
+++ b/llvm/include/llvm/IR/RuntimeLibcalls.td
@@ -2129,7 +2129,7 @@ defvar X86CommonLibcalls =
);
defvar Windows32DivRemMulCalls =
- LibcallImpls<(add WindowsDivRemMulLibcalls),
+ LibcallsWithCC<(add WindowsDivRemMulLibcalls), X86_STDCALL,
RuntimeLibcallPredicate<"TT.isWindowsMSVCEnvironment() || TT.isWindowsItaniumEnvironment()">>;
def X86_32SystemLibrary
diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/win32-int-runtime-libcalls.ll b/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/win32-int-runtime-libcalls.ll
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..86f24ebf6ce86
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/win32-int-runtime-libcalls.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 5
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=i686-windows-msvc < %s | FileCheck %s
+
+define i64 @test_sdiv_i64(i64 %a, i64 %b) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_sdiv_i64:
+; CHECK: # %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: calll __alldiv
+; CHECK-NEXT: retl
+ %ret = sdiv i64 %a, %b
+ ret i64 %ret
+}
+
+define i64 @test_srem_i64(i64 %a, i64 %b) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_srem_i64:
+; CHECK: # %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: calll __allrem
+; CHECK-NEXT: retl
+ %ret = srem i64 %a, %b
+ ret i64 %ret
+}
+
+define i64 @test_udiv_i64(i64 %a, i64 %b) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_udiv_i64:
+; CHECK: # %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: calll __aulldiv
+; CHECK-NEXT: retl
+ %ret = udiv i64 %a, %b
+ ret i64 %ret
+}
+
+define i64 @test_urem_i64(i64 %a, i64 %b) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_urem_i64:
+; CHECK: # %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: calll __aullrem
+; CHECK-NEXT: retl
+ %ret = urem i64 %a, %b
+ ret i64 %ret
+}
+
+define i64 @test_mul_i64(i64 %a, i64 %b) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_mul_i64:
+; CHECK: # %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: pushl %esi
+; CHECK-NEXT: movl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx
+; CHECK-NEXT: movl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %esi
+; CHECK-NEXT: movl %ecx, %eax
+; CHECK-NEXT: mull %esi
+; CHECK-NEXT: imull {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx
+; CHECK-NEXT: addl %ecx, %edx
+; CHECK-NEXT: imull {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %esi
+; CHECK-NEXT: addl %esi, %edx
+; CHECK-NEXT: popl %esi
+; CHECK-NEXT: retl
+ %ret = mul i64 %a, %b
+ ret i64 %ret
+}
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you add a test for x64 that ensures that is also called correctly (no stdcall)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! This does fix all my observed issues.
/cherry-pick 0110168 |
/pull-request #149246 |
There's probably an existing test this should be added to, but our test coverage is really bad that this wasn't caught by one.
There's probably an existing test this should be added to, but our test coverage is really bad that this wasn't caught by one. (cherry picked from commit 0110168)
There's probably an existing test this should be added to,
but our test coverage is really bad that this wasn't caught
by one.