================
@@ -14574,9 +14574,17 @@ bool FloatExprEvaluator::VisitCallExpr(const CallExpr
*E) {
default:
return false;
+ case Builtin::BI__builtin_frexpl:
+ // AIX library function `frexpl` has 'long double' type and not
+ // PPCDoubleDouble type. To make sure we generate the right value, don't
+ // constant evaluate it and instead defer to a libcall.
+ if (Info.Ctx.getTargetInfo().getTriple().isPPC() &&
+ (&Info.Ctx.getTargetInfo().getLongDoubleFormat() !=
+ &llvm::APFloat::PPCDoubleDouble()))
+ return false;
+ LLVM_FALLTHROUGH;
case Builtin::BI__builtin_frexp:
- case Builtin::BI__builtin_frexpf:
- case Builtin::BI__builtin_frexpl: {
+ case Builtin::BI__builtin_frexpf: {
----------------
zahiraam wrote:
> > With this change (special casing frexpl for AIX) the IR produced is: `call
> > { double, i32 } @llvm.frexp.f64.i32(double 1.234500e+02)`
> > without this change the IR is: `store double 0.000000e+00, ptr
> > %returnValue, align 8`
> > This doesn't seem correct to me.
>
> Ignoring considerations around storing to `DummyInt`, the original test code
> was:
>
> ```
> returnValue = __builtin_frexpl(0.0L, &DummyInt);
> ```
>
> I don't know where the `123.45` came from. That the result is zero for an
> input of zero is correct; however, the constant-folding in the context of
> that test would undermine its intent (see check that an appropriate target
> runtime function is called).
Sorry. The output is: `call { double, i32 } @llvm.frexp.f64.i32(double
0.000000e+00)`. That was a mistake of my part.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88978
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
