From 8f360352e26cc91aa9608245913ac76aadd65cd0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matt Arsenault Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 20:14:46 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: Remove redundant or buggy config of __aeabi_d2h This was set if `TT.isTargetAEABI()`. This was previously set above if `TM.isAAPCS_ABI() && (TT.isTargetAEABI() || TT.isTargetGNUAEABI() || TT.isTargetMuslAEABI() || TT.isAndroid())`. So this could differ based on a manually specified -target-abi flag due to the `isAAPCS_ABI` part of the original condition. I'm guessing these should be consistent, so either this second group of setLibcallImpl calls should have been guarded by the `isAAPCS_ABI` check, or the first condition should remove it. There doesn't appear to be any meaningful test coverage using the manually specified ABI option, so #152108 tries to remove it --- llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMISelLowering.cpp | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMISelLowering.cpp b/llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMISelLowering.cpp index 7f8b4460bb814..18766c8c6befa 100644 --- a/llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMISelLowering.cpp +++ b/llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMISelLowering.cpp @@ -737,7 +737,6 @@ ARMTargetLowering::ARMTargetLowering(const TargetMachine &TM_, const RTLIB::LibcallImpl Impl; } LibraryCalls[] = { {RTLIB::FPROUND_F32_F16, RTLIB::__aeabi_f2h}, - {RTLIB::FPROUND_F64_F16, RTLIB::__aeabi_d2h}, {RTLIB::FPEXT_F16_F32, RTLIB::__aeabi_h2f}, };