[Android] Drop workarounds for older Android API levels pre 9, 17 and 21 #161911

brad0 · 2025-10-03T21:19:46Z

Drop workarounds for Android API levels pre 9, 17, 21.

The minimum Android API currently supported by the LTS NDK is 21.

llvmbot · 2025-10-03T21:20:17Z

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-analysis
@llvm/pr-subscribers-compiler-rt-sanitizer
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-x86
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-arm

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-ir

Author: Brad Smith (brad0)

Changes

Drop workarounds for Android API levels pre 9 and 17.

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/161911.diff

5 Files Affected:

(modified) llvm/include/llvm/IR/RuntimeLibcalls.h (+1-2)
(modified) llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLoweringCall.cpp (+1-1)
(modified) llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/sincos.ll (+1-26)
(modified) llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/stack-protector-target.ll (+1-11)
(modified) llvm/test/Transforms/SafeStack/X86/abi_ssp.ll (+2-6)

diff --git a/llvm/include/llvm/IR/RuntimeLibcalls.h b/llvm/include/llvm/IR/RuntimeLibcalls.h
index 93183bc6b4aa92..5ef6f24c272e49 100644
--- a/llvm/include/llvm/IR/RuntimeLibcalls.h
+++ b/llvm/include/llvm/IR/RuntimeLibcalls.h
@@ -225,8 +225,7 @@ struct RuntimeLibcallsInfo {
 
   /// Return true if the target has sincosf/sincos/sincosl functions
   static bool hasSinCos(const Triple &TT) {
-    return TT.isGNUEnvironment() || TT.isOSFuchsia() ||
-           (TT.isAndroid() && !TT.isAndroidVersionLT(9));
+    return TT.isGNUEnvironment() || TT.isOSFuchsia() || TT.isAndroid();
   }
 
   static bool hasSinCos_f32_f64(const Triple &TT) {
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLoweringCall.cpp b/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLoweringCall.cpp
index 3bc46af4d130b5..6dd43b277e6799 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLoweringCall.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLoweringCall.cpp
@@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ unsigned X86TargetLowering::getAddressSpace() const {
 
 static bool hasStackGuardSlotTLS(const Triple &TargetTriple) {
   return TargetTriple.isOSGlibc() || TargetTriple.isOSFuchsia() ||
-         (TargetTriple.isAndroid() && !TargetTriple.isAndroidVersionLT(17));
+         TargetTriple.isAndroid();
 }
 
 static Constant* SegmentOffset(IRBuilderBase &IRB,
diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/sincos.ll b/llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/sincos.ll
index e1b683a8a66575..1a4313e651d727 100644
--- a/llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/sincos.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/sincos.ll
@@ -2,8 +2,7 @@
 ; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=armv7-apple-ios7 -mcpu=cortex-a8 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=SINCOS
 ; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=armv7-linux-gnu -mcpu=cortex-a8 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=SINCOS-GNU
 ; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=armv7-linux-gnueabi -mcpu=cortex-a8 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=SINCOS-GNU
-; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=armv7-linux-android -mcpu=cortex-a8 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOOPT-ANDROID
-; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=armv7-linux-android9 -mcpu=cortex-a8 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=SINCOS-GNU
+; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=armv7-linux-android -mcpu=cortex-a8 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=SINCOS-GNU
 
 ; Combine sin / cos into a single call unless they may write errno (as
 ; captured by readnone attrbiute, controlled by clang -fmath-errno
@@ -22,10 +21,6 @@ entry:
 ; NOOPT: bl _sinf
 ; NOOPT: bl _cosf
 
-; NOOPT-ANDROID-LABEL: test1:
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl sinf
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl cosf
-
   %call = tail call float @sinf(float %x) readnone
   %call1 = tail call float @cosf(float %x) readnone
   %add = fadd float %call, %call1
@@ -44,10 +39,6 @@ entry:
 ; NOOPT: bl _sinf
 ; NOOPT: bl _cosf
 
-; NOOPT-ANDROID-LABEL: test1_fast:
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl sinf
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl cosf
-
   %call = tail call fast float @sinf(float %x) readnone
   %call1 = tail call fast float @cosf(float %x) readnone
   %add = fadd float %call, %call1
@@ -68,10 +59,6 @@ entry:
 ; NOOPT: bl _sinf
 ; NOOPT: bl _cosf
 
-; NOOPT-ANDROID-LABEL: test1_errno:
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl sinf
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl cosf
-
   %call = tail call float @sinf(float %x)
   %call1 = tail call float @cosf(float %x)
   %add = fadd float %call, %call1
@@ -90,10 +77,6 @@ entry:
 ; NOOPT: bl _sin
 ; NOOPT: bl _cos
 
-; NOOPT-ANDROID-LABEL: test2:
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl sin
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl cos
-
   %call = tail call double @sin(double %x) readnone
   %call1 = tail call double @cos(double %x) readnone
   %add = fadd double %call, %call1
@@ -112,10 +95,6 @@ entry:
 ; NOOPT: bl _sin
 ; NOOPT: bl _cos
 
-; NOOPT-ANDROID-LABEL: test2_fast:
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl sin
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl cos
-
   %call = tail call fast double @sin(double %x) readnone
   %call1 = tail call fast double @cos(double %x) readnone
   %add = fadd double %call, %call1
@@ -136,10 +115,6 @@ entry:
 ; NOOPT: bl _sin
 ; NOOPT: bl _cos
 
-; NOOPT-ANDROID-LABEL: test2_errno:
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl sin
-; NOOPT-ANDROID: bl cos
-
   %call = tail call double @sin(double %x)
   %call1 = tail call double @cos(double %x)
   %add = fadd double %call, %call1
diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/stack-protector-target.ll b/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/stack-protector-target.ll
index f7c5680d0d8113..4ba0302cf6fc30 100644
--- a/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/stack-protector-target.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/stack-protector-target.ll
@@ -2,13 +2,8 @@
 ; RUN: llc -mtriple=i386-linux < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=I386-TLS %s
 ; RUN: llc -mtriple=x86_64-linux < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=X64-TLS %s
 
-; RUN: llc -mtriple=i386-linux-android < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=I386 %s
-; RUN: llc -mtriple=i386-linux-android16 < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=I386 %s
-; RUN: llc -mtriple=i386-linux-android17 < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=I386-TLS %s
-; RUN: llc -mtriple=i386-linux-android24 < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=I386-TLS %s
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=i386-linux-android < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=I386-TLS %s
 ; RUN: llc -mtriple=x86_64-linux-android < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=X64-TLS %s
-; RUN: llc -mtriple=x86_64-linux-android17 < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=X64-TLS %s
-; RUN: llc -mtriple=x86_64-linux-android24 < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=X64-TLS %s
 
 ; RUN: llc -mtriple=i386-kfreebsd < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=I386-TLS %s
 ; RUN: llc -mtriple=x86_64-kfreebsd < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=X64-TLS %s
@@ -27,11 +22,6 @@ declare void @_Z7CapturePi(ptr)
 ; X64-TLS: movq %fs:40, %[[C:.*]]
 ; X64-TLS: cmpq 16(%rsp), %[[C]]
 
-; I386: movl __stack_chk_guard, %[[B:.*]]
-; I386: movl %[[B]], 8(%esp)
-; I386: movl __stack_chk_guard, %[[C:.*]]
-; I386: cmpl 8(%esp), %[[C]]
-
 ; I386-TLS: movl %gs:20, %[[B:.*]]
 ; I386-TLS: movl %[[B]], 8(%esp)
 ; I386-TLS: movl %gs:20, %[[C:.*]]
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/SafeStack/X86/abi_ssp.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/SafeStack/X86/abi_ssp.ll
index e66127533d38d6..3b6fb3aa0bfdbc 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/SafeStack/X86/abi_ssp.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/SafeStack/X86/abi_ssp.ll
@@ -1,9 +1,7 @@
 ; RUN: opt -safe-stack -S -mtriple=i686-pc-linux-gnu < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,TLS32 %s
 ; RUN: opt -safe-stack -S -mtriple=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,TLS64 %s
 
-; RUN: opt -safe-stack -S -mtriple=i686-linux-android < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,GLOBAL32 %s
-; RUN: opt -safe-stack -S -mtriple=i686-linux-android24 < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,TLS32 %s
-
+; RUN: opt -safe-stack -S -mtriple=i686-linux-android < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,TLS32 %s
 ; RUN: opt -safe-stack -S -mtriple=x86_64-linux-android < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,TLS64 %s
 
 ; RUN: opt -safe-stack -S -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-fuchsia < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,FUCHSIA64 %s
@@ -11,9 +9,7 @@
 ; RUN: opt -passes=safe-stack -S -mtriple=i686-pc-linux-gnu < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,TLS32 %s
 ; RUN: opt -passes=safe-stack -S -mtriple=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,TLS64 %s
 
-; RUN: opt -passes=safe-stack -S -mtriple=i686-linux-android < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,GLOBAL32 %s
-; RUN: opt -passes=safe-stack -S -mtriple=i686-linux-android24 < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,TLS32 %s
-
+; RUN: opt -passes=safe-stack -S -mtriple=i686-linux-android < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,TLS32 %s
 ; RUN: opt -passes=safe-stack -S -mtriple=x86_64-linux-android < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,TLS64 %s
 
 ; RUN: opt -passes=safe-stack -S -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-fuchsia < %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefixes=COMMON,FUCHSIA64 %s

pirama-arumuga-nainar · 2025-10-03T22:34:45Z

@smeenai FYI.

smeenai · 2025-10-03T23:55:39Z

Thanks for flagging this! We recently moved to API 21+ for all our major apps (and I'm delighted to not have to support anything older anymore), so this should be okay on our end now :)

nikic

Your PR description should not just be saying what you are doing, by why you are doing it. What policy are you following in these removals?

This one looks OK to me in that these are older than the minimum API level of the current LTS NDK, but given that you also submitted #161893 where this is decidedly not the case, it's unclear to me what the underlying process driving these changes is.

enh-google · 2025-10-06T13:21:19Z

Your PR description should not just be saying what you are doing, by why you are doing it. What policy are you following in these removals?

This one looks OK to me in that these are older than the minimum API level of the current LTS NDK, but given that you also submitted #161893 where this is decidedly not the case, it's unclear to me what the underlying process driving these changes is.

that's why this got broken in two --- these changes represent the current shipping state of the NDK, whereas the other changes are where the NDK will be in a few more months.

is there a good place we can document this "track the NDK" policy? (i was surprised to see in some of the diff context here that there's still support for ubuntu's "jaunty" release from 2009, for example, but maybe there's a documented llvm ubuntu release support policy somewhere?)

enh-google · 2025-10-06T13:36:10Z

and, no, sadly we don't have Android documentation [that i know of --- @DanAlbert ?] that tells you either (a) what our policy is or (b) what that policy means in practice at any given time.

there's extensive documentation of (a) internally, and you can infer (b) from the lowest __INTRODUCED_IN() in the headers in the ndk ... but there's no public doc i can think of. to be fair, it's quite complicated; it's not time-based, and it's not just usage-based because obviously some things are much more painful to support than others.

brad0 · 2025-10-08T04:07:23Z

Your PR description should not just be saying what you are doing, by why you are doing it. What policy are you following in these removals?

The Android NDK eventually drops support for Android versions. I have been garbage collecting bits for Operating Systems that are no longer supported whether it be FreeBSD/NetBSD/Android, etc.

This one looks OK to me in that these are older than the minimum API level of the current LTS NDK, but given that you also submitted #161893 where this is decidedly not the case, it's unclear to me what the underlying process driving these changes is.

The other patch was based on me being tagged in this other issue, android/ndk#2188 , originally I had everything as one patch and was going to wait but then split out the older bits that can be commited now. It'll be waiting until the NDK issue is completed in a number of months, so NDK r31.

enh-google · 2025-10-08T13:30:15Z

(github n00b asks: i see you updated the first comment on the conversation tab in a way that addresses @nikic's question, but do you need to do the commit message on the patch too? i think the answer is no, because github replaces that commit message at "squash and merge" time? otherwise lgtm.)

brad0 · 2025-10-08T16:00:47Z

(github n00b asks: i see you updated the first comment on the conversation tab in a way that addresses @nikic's question, but do you need to do the commit message on the patch too? i think the answer is no, because github replaces that commit message at "squash and merge" time? otherwise lgtm.)

I am not 100% sure. I updated it either way.

Drop workarounds for Android API levels pre 9, 17 and 21. The minimum Android API currently supported by the LTS NDK is 21.

llvmbot added backend:ARM backend:X86 llvm:ir llvm:transforms labels Oct 3, 2025

brad0 requested review from enh-google, DanAlbert and pirama-arumuga-nainar October 3, 2025 21:23

brad0 force-pushed the android_api_remove_9_17 branch from 587ca42 to 66c9c77 Compare October 3, 2025 21:56

llvmbot added the compiler-rt:sanitizer label Oct 3, 2025

brad0 changed the title ~~[Android] Drop workarounds for older Android API levels pre 9 and 17~~ [Android] Drop workarounds for older Android API levels pre 9, 17 and 21 Oct 3, 2025

brad0 force-pushed the android_api_remove_9_17 branch 2 times, most recently from 7fd3538 to 0b66b56 Compare October 3, 2025 22:11

pirama-arumuga-nainar mentioned this pull request Oct 4, 2025

[Android] Drop workarounds for older Android API levels pre 23 #161893

Open

brad0 force-pushed the android_api_remove_9_17 branch from 0b66b56 to c41e1cd Compare October 4, 2025 01:32

llvmbot added the llvm:analysis Includes value tracking, cost tables and constant folding label Oct 4, 2025

brad0 force-pushed the android_api_remove_9_17 branch from c41e1cd to 24a9ea1 Compare October 4, 2025 02:48

llvmbot added the llvm:instcombine Covers the InstCombine, InstSimplify and AggressiveInstCombine passes label Oct 4, 2025

enh-google approved these changes Oct 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

nikic requested changes Oct 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

brad0 force-pushed the android_api_remove_9_17 branch from 24a9ea1 to 6598b58 Compare October 8, 2025 16:00

enh-google approved these changes Oct 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

brad0 requested a review from nikic October 8, 2025 16:55

[Android] Drop workarounds for older Android API levels pre 9, 17 and 21

15102ac

Drop workarounds for Android API levels pre 9, 17 and 21. The minimum Android API currently supported by the LTS NDK is 21.

brad0 force-pushed the android_api_remove_9_17 branch from 6598b58 to 15102ac Compare October 8, 2025 18:15

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

[Android] Drop workarounds for older Android API levels pre 9, 17 and 21 #161911

[Android] Drop workarounds for older Android API levels pre 9, 17 and 21 #161911

Uh oh!

brad0 commented Oct 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

llvmbot commented Oct 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

pirama-arumuga-nainar commented Oct 3, 2025

Uh oh!

smeenai commented Oct 3, 2025

Uh oh!

nikic left a comment

Uh oh!

enh-google commented Oct 6, 2025

Uh oh!

enh-google commented Oct 6, 2025

Uh oh!

brad0 commented Oct 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

enh-google commented Oct 8, 2025

Uh oh!

brad0 commented Oct 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

[Android] Drop workarounds for older Android API levels pre 9, 17 and 21 #161911

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[Android] Drop workarounds for older Android API levels pre 9, 17 and 21 #161911

Uh oh!

Conversation

brad0 commented Oct 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

llvmbot commented Oct 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pirama-arumuga-nainar commented Oct 3, 2025

Uh oh!

smeenai commented Oct 3, 2025

Uh oh!

nikic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

enh-google commented Oct 6, 2025

Uh oh!

enh-google commented Oct 6, 2025

Uh oh!

brad0 commented Oct 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

enh-google commented Oct 8, 2025

Uh oh!

brad0 commented Oct 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

brad0 commented Oct 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

llvmbot commented Oct 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

brad0 commented Oct 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading