diff options
| author | Dylan DPC <dylan.dpc@gmail.com> | 2020-11-15 03:02:39 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | GitHub <noreply@github.com> | 2020-11-15 03:02:39 +0100 |
| commit | ae7020fcb4254714d8dbe6246cc0a11fdf9c9de7 (patch) | |
| tree | 9eb42c8b737c8b0162aed07803668d318fc680ab /compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp | |
| parent | dbb37fb1eed3f26b0071006844e7ceab3090062a (diff) | |
| parent | 86193ca91c2fa472ef8fbebe05037331d803f0fd (diff) | |
| download | rust-ae7020fcb4254714d8dbe6246cc0a11fdf9c9de7.tar.gz rust-ae7020fcb4254714d8dbe6246cc0a11fdf9c9de7.zip | |
Rollup merge of #78848 - DevJPM:ci-llvm-9, r=nikic
Bump minimal supported LLVM version to 9 This bumps the minimal tested llvm version to 9. This should enable supporting newer LLVM features (and CPU extensions). This was motived by #78361 having to drop features because of LLVM 8 not supporting certain CPU extensions yet. This was declared relatively uncontroversial on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/Min.20Supported.20LLVM.20Upgrade.20Process.3F/near/215957859). Paging ````@eddyb```` because there was a comment in the [dockerfile](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/ci/docker/host-x86_64/x86_64-gnu-llvm-8/Dockerfile#L42) describing a hack (which I don't quite understand) which was also blocked by not having LLVM 9.
Diffstat (limited to 'compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp')
| -rw-r--r-- | compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp | 16 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 16 deletions
diff --git a/compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp b/compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp index 938eb19faef..9b0c176b692 100644 --- a/compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp +++ b/compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp @@ -124,9 +124,7 @@ extern "C" LLVMValueRef LLVMRustGetOrInsertFunction(LLVMModuleRef M, return wrap(unwrap(M) ->getOrInsertFunction(StringRef(Name, NameLen), unwrap<FunctionType>(FunctionTy)) -#if LLVM_VERSION_GE(9, 0) .getCallee() -#endif ); } @@ -251,11 +249,7 @@ extern "C" void LLVMRustAddDereferenceableOrNullCallSiteAttr(LLVMValueRef Instr, extern "C" void LLVMRustAddByValCallSiteAttr(LLVMValueRef Instr, unsigned Index, LLVMTypeRef Ty) { CallBase *Call = unwrap<CallBase>(Instr); -#if LLVM_VERSION_GE(9, 0) Attribute Attr = Attribute::getWithByValType(Call->getContext(), unwrap(Ty)); -#else - Attribute Attr = Attribute::get(Call->getContext(), Attribute::ByVal); -#endif Call->addAttribute(Index, Attr); } @@ -296,11 +290,7 @@ extern "C" void LLVMRustAddDereferenceableOrNullAttr(LLVMValueRef Fn, extern "C" void LLVMRustAddByValAttr(LLVMValueRef Fn, unsigned Index, LLVMTypeRef Ty) { Function *F = unwrap<Function>(Fn); -#if LLVM_VERSION_GE(9, 0) Attribute Attr = Attribute::getWithByValType(F->getContext(), unwrap(Ty)); -#else - Attribute Attr = Attribute::get(F->getContext(), Attribute::ByVal); -#endif F->addAttribute(Index, Attr); } @@ -616,11 +606,9 @@ static DISubprogram::DISPFlags fromRust(LLVMRustDISPFlags SPFlags) { if (isSet(SPFlags & LLVMRustDISPFlags::SPFlagOptimized)) { Result |= DISubprogram::DISPFlags::SPFlagOptimized; } -#if LLVM_VERSION_GE(9, 0) if (isSet(SPFlags & LLVMRustDISPFlags::SPFlagMainSubprogram)) { Result |= DISubprogram::DISPFlags::SPFlagMainSubprogram; } -#endif return Result; } @@ -744,10 +732,6 @@ extern "C" LLVMMetadataRef LLVMRustDIBuilderCreateFunction( DITemplateParameterArray(unwrap<MDTuple>(TParam)); DISubprogram::DISPFlags llvmSPFlags = fromRust(SPFlags); DINode::DIFlags llvmFlags = fromRust(Flags); -#if LLVM_VERSION_LT(9, 0) - if (isSet(SPFlags & LLVMRustDISPFlags::SPFlagMainSubprogram)) - llvmFlags |= DINode::DIFlags::FlagMainSubprogram; -#endif DISubprogram *Sub = Builder->createFunction( unwrapDI<DIScope>(Scope), StringRef(Name, NameLen), |
