mirror of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git
synced 2025-12-30 10:45:32 +00:00
48d684111e
match clang's `va_arg` assembly on arm targets
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44930
For this example
```rust
#![feature(c_variadic)]
#[unsafe(no_mangle)]
unsafe extern "C" fn variadic(a: f64, mut args: ...) -> f64 {
let b = args.arg::<f64>();
let c = args.arg::<f64>();
a + b + c
}
```
We currently generate (via llvm):
```asm
variadic:
sub sp, sp, #12
stmib sp, {r2, r3}
vmov d0, r0, r1
add r0, sp, #4
vldr d1, [sp, #4]
add r0, r0, #15
bic r0, r0, #7
vadd.f64 d0, d0, d1
add r1, r0, #8
str r1, [sp]
vldr d1, [r0]
vadd.f64 d0, d0, d1
vmov r0, r1, d0
add sp, sp, #12
bx lr
```
LLVM is not doing a good job. In fact, it's well-known that LLVM's implementation of `va_arg` is kind of bad, and we implement it ourselves (based on clang) for many targets already. For arm, our own `emit_ptr_va_arg` saves 3 instructions.
Next, it turns out it's important for LLVM to explicitly start and end the lifetime of the `va_list`. In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146059 I already end the lifetime, but when looking at this again, I noticed that it is important to also start it, see https://godbolt.org/z/EGqvKTTsK: failing to explicitly start the lifetime uses an extra register.
So, the combination of `emit_ptr_va_arg` with starting/ending the lifetime makes rustc emit exactly the instructions that clang generates::
```asm
variadic:
sub sp, sp, #12
stmib sp, {r2, r3}
vmov d16, r0, r1
vldr d17, [sp, #4]
vadd.f64 d16, d16, d17
vldr d17, [sp, #12]
vadd.f64 d16, d16, d17
vmov r0, r1, d16
add sp, sp, #12
bx lr
```
The arguments to `emit_ptr_va_arg` are based on [the clang implementation](03dc2a41f3/clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/ARM.cpp (L798-L844)).
r? ``@workingjubilee`` (I can re-roll if your queue is too full, but you do seem like the right person here)
try-job: armhf-gnu
The files here use the LLVM FileCheck framework, documented at https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html.
One extension worth noting is the use of revisions as custom prefixes for FileCheck. If your codegen test has different behavior based on the chosen target or different compiler flags that you want to exercise, you can use a revisions annotation, like so:
// revisions: aaa bbb
// [bbb] compile-flags: --flags-for-bbb
After specifying those variations, you can write different expected, or
explicitly unexpected output by using <prefix>-SAME: and <prefix>-NOT:,
like so:
// CHECK: expected code
// aaa-SAME: emitted-only-for-aaa
// aaa-NOT: emitted-only-for-bbb
// bbb-NOT: emitted-only-for-aaa
// bbb-SAME: emitted-only-for-bbb