search for: __fsub64

...Uses d0, d1 and defines d0,d1 > > > > This seems to work, at least on simple test files. > > That should be a robust solution. > > > But I would also need a way to convert such a FSUB64 > pseudo-instruction > > into the assembler function call, e.g. "call __fsub64". At the > moment I > > don't quite understand at which stage and how I should do it > (lowering, > > selection, combining??? ). What would be the easiest way to map it > to > > such a call instruction? > > Why not just make the asm string be "call __...

...Imp<[d0,d1],[d0,d1]>; // Uses d0, d1 and defines d0,d1 > > This seems to work, at least on simple test files. That should be a robust solution. > But I would also need a way to convert such a FSUB64 pseudo-instruction > into the assembler function call, e.g. "call __fsub64". At the moment I > don't quite understand at which stage and how I should do it (lowering, > selection, combining??? ). What would be the easiest way to map it to > such a call instruction? Why not just make the asm string be "call __fsub64"? > One issue with the d...

...", [(set d0, (fsub d0, d1))]>, Imp<[d0,d1],[d0,d1]>; // Uses d0, d1 and defines d0,d1 This seems to work, at least on simple test files. But I would also need a way to convert such a FSUB64 pseudo-instruction into the assembler function call, e.g. "call __fsub64". At the moment I don't quite understand at which stage and how I should do it (lowering, selection, combining??? ). What would be the easiest way to map it to such a call instruction? One issue with the described approach is a pretty inefficient code resulting after the register allocati...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: >>> such a call instruction? >> >> Why not just make the asm string be "call __fsub64"? > > Well, of course it would be the best solution. But the interesting part > is that I need to generate the machine code directly because for > different reasons use of a system assembler is not an option. As a ok. > result, I need to do this conversion in the target backen...

...hine > instructions at all. Instead, I basically tell that I will expand all > FP operations myself and then I simply expand them into the following > sequence of instructions: > mov arg1, %d0 // enfore register constraint > mov arg2, %d1 // enfore register constraint > call __fsub64 > > Is it correct understanding? If yes, how do I explain that arguments > are to be passed on the concrete physical registers like %d0 and %d1 > and result comes on %d0? Do I need to allocate virtual regs for them > and pre-assign physical regs somehow? > > Or my be I have to...

> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > >>> such a call instruction? > >> > >> Why not just make the asm string be "call __fsub64"? > > > > Well, of course it would be the best solution. But the interesting > part > > is that I need to generate the machine code directly because for > > different reasons use of a system assembler is not an option. As a > > ok. > > > result, I ne...

Hi Chris, Thanks for this info. This provides even better and more advanced examples of multiclass usage! But your previous explanations were so good that I implemented in my backend last week almost the same that you've done now in the X86InstrSSE.td. I even introduced isCommutable parameter to indicate this property, just as you did. So, by now integer arithmetic and general purpose

For anyone interested, X86InstrSSE.td makes extensive use of multiclasses now if people are looking for examples other than the sparc backend. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/