llvm dev - Sep 2007 - [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!

I moved my code to 2.1 but still the same.
If I make ADD i16 legal, then it goes through, but it has problem
expanding it to i8.
Should I go ahead and customize it and do the same for all instructions?
Or there is a more general thing that I can do?

A.

-----Original Message-----
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
On Behalf Of Chris Lattner
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:27 PM
To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!


On Sep 27, 2007, at 4:35 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>  
<Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
> I'm working on version 2.0
> The assertion at line 2380 of LegalizeDAG.cpp fails when it is  
> trying to
> lower the add with i16.
>
> assertion reads:
> assert(MVT::isVector(Node->getValueType(0)) &&
>   "Cannot expand this binary operation!");
>
> I am trying to compile a very simple program as follows:
>
> short var;
> void foo(void)
> {
> 	Var++;
> }
>
> The input bytecode, (in addition to the debug stuff) contains:
>
> 	%tmp  = load i16* @var        ;<i16> [#uses=1]
> 	%tmp1 = add  i16  %tmp, 1     ;<i16> [#uses=1]
> 	store  i16 %tmp1, i16* @var
> 	br  label %return
> return:         ;preds = %entry
>
> Is the above giving any clue, or you need more info?
I'd suggest trying mainline or LLVM 2.1.  In 2.1 (but not 2.0) it is  
possible to implement 128-bit addition on a 32-bit cpu.  This seems  
similar to your situation.

-Chris 
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

On Sep 28, 2007, at 11:36 AM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>  
<Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
> I moved my code to 2.1 but still the same.
> If I make ADD i16 legal, then it goes through, but it has problem
> expanding it to i8.
> Should I go ahead and customize it and do the same for all  
> instructions?
> Or there is a more general thing that I can do?
I really can't tell without more information.  How is it failing?   
Can you add a stack trace and pdf of the dump of the dag being  
legalized when it crashes?

-Chris

Attached please find the gdb backtrace dump and the postscript file of
the DAG right before assertion.
The red Node is the current Node in LegalizeOp()
The only thing that I am customizing before we get here is the
FORMAL_ARGUMENTS. At this time I don't really care about the arguments,
just want to get some global values working. When I trace the program,
it is well passed the legalizing of formal arguments when it crashes so
I'm not sure if I may be breaking something in there.
Here is my code in the formalizing arguments (copied ISD::MERGE_VALUES
from PowerPC implementation, not sure if it is really needed)


static SDOperand LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS(SDOperand Op, SelectionDAG &DAG){
  SmallVector<SDOperand, 8> ArgValues;
  SDOperand Root = Op.getOperand(0);
  // Return the new list of results.
  std::vector<MVT::ValueType> RetVT(Op.Val->value_begin(),
                                    Op.Val->value_end());
  const Function* Fn = DAG.getMachineFunction().getFunction();
  std::cout<<Op.Val->getNumValues();
  std::cout<<"-----------------
"<<__FUNCTION__<<" handling
FORMAL_ARGUMENTS
of"<<Fn->getName()<<std::endl;std::cout.flush();
  for (unsigned ArgNo = 0, e = Op.Val->getNumValues()-1; ArgNo != e;
++ArgNo) {
    
    MVT::ValueType ObjectVT = Op.getValue(ArgNo).getValueType();
    
    switch (ObjectVT){
    default: assert(0 && "Unhandled argument type!");
    case MVT::i32: cout<<"------------
i32"<<std::endl;break;
    case MVT::i64: cout<<"------------
i64"<<std::endl;break;
    case MVT::f32: cout<<"------------
f32"<<std::endl;break;
    case MVT::f64: cout<<"------------
f64"<<std::endl;break;
    case MVT::v4f32: cout<<"------------
v4f32"<<std::endl;break;
    case MVT::v4i32: cout<<"------------
v4i32"<<std::endl;break;
    case MVT::v8i16: cout<<"------------
v8i16"<<std::endl;break;
    case MVT::v16i8: cout<<"------------
v16i8"<<std::endl;break;
      break;
    } //end switch
  } //end for
  
  ArgValues.push_back(Root);
  return DAG.getNode(ISD::MERGE_VALUES, RetVT, &ArgValues[0],
ArgValues.size());
}

-----Original Message-----
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
On Behalf Of Chris Lattner
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 12:04 PM
To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit!


On Sep 28, 2007, at 11:36 AM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com>  
<Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote:
> I moved my code to 2.1 but still the same.
> If I make ADD i16 legal, then it goes through, but it has problem
> expanding it to i8.
> Should I go ahead and customize it and do the same for all  
> instructions?
> Or there is a more general thing that I can do?
I really can't tell without more information.  How is it failing?   
Can you add a stack trace and pdf of the dump of the dag being  
legalized when it crashes?

-Chris
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: stacktrace.txt
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070928/dc38d901/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dag.ps
Type: application/postscript
Size: 23458 bytes
Desc: dag.ps
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070928/dc38d901/attachment.ps>