[M68k] fix call frame destruction elimination #107579
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project! This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified. If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page. If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers. If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide. You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums. |
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-m68k Author: Janis Heims (TechnoElf) ChangesFixes #106213. This adjusts Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107579.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Target/M68k/M68kFrameLowering.cpp b/llvm/lib/Target/M68k/M68kFrameLowering.cpp
index 1445bac0b92e85..0512037986cb18 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Target/M68k/M68kFrameLowering.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Target/M68k/M68kFrameLowering.cpp
@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
using namespace llvm;
+#define DEBUG_TYPE "M68k-frame"
+
M68kFrameLowering::M68kFrameLowering(const M68kSubtarget &STI, Align Alignment)
: TargetFrameLowering(StackGrowsDown, Alignment, -4), STI(STI),
TII(*STI.getInstrInfo()), TRI(STI.getRegisterInfo()) {
@@ -231,8 +233,8 @@ MachineBasicBlock::iterator M68kFrameLowering::eliminateCallFramePseudoInstr(
unsigned Opcode = I->getOpcode();
bool IsDestroy = Opcode == TII.getCallFrameDestroyOpcode();
DebugLoc DL = I->getDebugLoc();
- uint64_t Amount = !ReserveCallFrame ? I->getOperand(0).getImm() : 0;
- uint64_t InternalAmt = (IsDestroy && Amount) ? I->getOperand(1).getImm() : 0;
+ uint64_t Amount = I->getOperand(0).getImm();
+ uint64_t InternalAmt = (IsDestroy || Amount) ? I->getOperand(1).getImm() : 0;
I = MBB.erase(I);
if (!ReserveCallFrame) {
diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/M68k/multiple-return.ll b/llvm/test/CodeGen/M68k/multiple-return.ll
index f52f422b194f59..8e97908324f057 100644
--- a/llvm/test/CodeGen/M68k/multiple-return.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/M68k/multiple-return.ll
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=m68k-linux -verify-machineinstrs | FileCheck %s
-define { i32, i32, i32, i32 } @test() {
-; CHECK-LABEL: test:
+define { i32, i32, i32, i32 } @test0() {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test0:
; CHECK: .cfi_startproc
; CHECK-NEXT: ; %bb.0: ; %start
; CHECK-NEXT: move.l (4,%sp), %a0
@@ -18,3 +18,73 @@ define { i32, i32, i32, i32 } @test() {
start:
ret { i32, i32, i32, i32 } { i32 13, i32 17, i32 19, i32 23 }
}
+
+define void @call_test0() {
+; CHECK-LABEL: call_test0:
+; CHECK: .cfi_startproc
+; CHECK-NEXT: ; %bb.0: ; %start
+; CHECK-NEXT: suba.l #20, %sp
+; CHECK-NEXT: .cfi_def_cfa_offset -24
+; CHECK-NEXT: lea (4,%sp), %a0
+; CHECK-NEXT: move.l %a0, (%sp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: jsr test0
+; CHECK-NEXT: adda.l #16, %sp
+; CHECK-NEXT: rts
+start:
+ %val = call { i32, i32, i32, i32 } @test0()
+ ret void
+}
+
+define void @test1(ptr sret({ i32, i32, i32, i32 }) %ret_val) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test1:
+; CHECK: .cfi_startproc
+; CHECK-NEXT: ; %bb.0: ; %start
+; CHECK-NEXT: move.l (4,%sp), %d0
+; CHECK-NEXT: move.l (%sp), %a1
+; CHECK-NEXT: adda.l #4, %sp
+; CHECK-NEXT: move.l %a1, (%sp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: rts
+start:
+ ret void
+}
+
+define void @call_test1() {
+; CHECK-LABEL: call_test1:
+; CHECK: .cfi_startproc
+; CHECK-NEXT: ; %bb.0: ; %start
+; CHECK-NEXT: suba.l #20, %sp
+; CHECK-NEXT: .cfi_def_cfa_offset -24
+; CHECK-NEXT: lea (4,%sp), %a0
+; CHECK-NEXT: move.l %a0, (%sp)
+; CHECK-NEXT: jsr test1
+; CHECK-NEXT: adda.l #16, %sp
+; CHECK-NEXT: rts
+start:
+ %ret_val = alloca { i32, i32, i32, i32 }
+ call void @test1(ptr %ret_val)
+ ret void
+}
+
+define i32 @test2() {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test2:
+; CHECK: .cfi_startproc
+; CHECK-NEXT: ; %bb.0: ; %start
+; CHECK-NEXT: moveq #13, %d0
+; CHECK-NEXT: rts
+start:
+ ret i32 13
+}
+
+define void @call_test2() {
+; CHECK-LABEL: call_test2:
+; CHECK: .cfi_startproc
+; CHECK-NEXT: ; %bb.0: ; %start
+; CHECK-NEXT: suba.l #4, %sp
+; CHECK-NEXT: .cfi_def_cfa_offset -8
+; CHECK-NEXT: jsr test2
+; CHECK-NEXT: adda.l #4, %sp
+; CHECK-NEXT: rts
+start:
+ %0 = call i32 @test2()
+ ret void
+}
|
|
ping @mshockwave (sorry for the wave of pings ^^) |
|
Ping @0x59616e |
mshockwave
approved these changes
Oct 20, 2024
TechnoElf
force-pushed
the
m68k-fix-epilogue
branch
from
315c273 to
05b9e91
Compare
|
@mshockwave That commit message looks good now, I guess? |
If using Github's web interface to merge, it actually uses the PR description. (@TechnoElf FYI) |
|
@TechnoElf Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project! Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR. Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues. How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here. If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again. If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done! |
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/52/builds/3623 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference |
Groverkss
pushed a commit
to iree-org/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 15, 2024
…lvm#107579) Fixes llvm#106213. This adjusts `eliminateCallFramePseudoInstr` to match the behaviour of the X86 backend.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #106213.
This adjusts
eliminateCallFramePseudoInstrto match the behaviour of the X86 backend.