nickdesaulniers added a comment. In D107420#2929115 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107420#2929115>, @craig.topper wrote:
> In D107420#2929039 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107420#2929039>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D107420#2928975 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107420#2928975>, @craig.topper >> wrote: >> >>> I put up a patch for a simple fix for this in the backend. >>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D107581 The generated code is not optimal, but >>> maybe better than frontend workarounds. >> >> Thanks for putting up the backend fix! That's much better than frontend >> workarounds. > > Looks like I may have opened a small can of worms. In 32-bit mode, a > __builtin_mul_overflow of _ExtInt(128) producing a signed result generates a > call to _muloti4 which neither compiler-rt or libgcc implement in 32-bit > mode. In 64-bit mode only compiler-rt implements _muloti4 for x86-64. I think this is also producing references to __mulodi4 for signed `long long` on 32b targets, see: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28629. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107420/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107420 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
