search for: addu

...88a0, 0x88c90f8 SU(6): 0x88c8b10: ch = SW 0x88c9160, 0x88c8a30, 0x88c8fc8, 0x88c8ec8 SU(5): 0x88c8a98: i32,ch = LW 0x88c8a30, 0x88c89c8, 0x88c8b10 SU(4): 0x88c8970: ch = BNE 0x88c8a98, 0x88c9060, 0x88c9540, 0x88c8a98:1 Selected machine code: entry: 0x88c7918, LLVM BB @0x88bf1f8, ID#0: %reg1024 = ADDu %ZERO, %4 %reg1025 = ADDu %ZERO, %5 %reg1026 = ADDiu %ZERO, 2 SW %reg1024, 0, <fi#0> SW %reg1025, 0, <fi#1> %reg1027 = LW 0, <fi#0> BNE %reg1027, %reg1026, mbb<cond_false,0x88c7db8> Successors according to CFG: 0x88c7db8 (#2) 0x88c79a8 (#1) Total amount of phi node...

Hi In my install directory under bin , I had llvm-c++,llvm-g++,llvm-gconv I tested one sample program #llvm-c++ addu.c -o addu-arm as: unrecognized option '-meabi=4' How do i solve this issue Thanks Yuvi R On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM, raj raja <yuvaraj.addu at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your reply > > I got error > > */bin/sh: build/genmodes: not found* > > I am tr...

...rtproc .frame $sp,64,$ra .mask 0x80000000,-4 .fmask 0x00000000,0 .set noreorder .set nomacro .set noat # BB#0: lui $2, %hi(_gp_disp) addiu $2, $2, %lo(_gp_disp) addiu $sp, $sp, -64 $tmp2: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 64 sw $ra, 60($sp) # 4-byte Folded Spill $tmp3: .cfi_offset 31, -4 addu $gp, $2, $25 sw $7, 76($sp) sw $6, 72($sp) sw $5, 68($sp) lw $3, %got(__stack_chk_guard)($gp) lw $1, 0($3) sw $1, 56($sp) sw $4, 52($sp) sw $zero, 48($sp) // i sw $zero, 44($sp) // val sw $zero, 40($sp) // sum addiu $1, $sp, 68 sw $1, 16($sp) // arg_ptr1 sw $zero, 48($sp) b $BB0_2...

I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. But on this example: define i32 @func(i1 zeroext %b, i32 %x, i32 %y) { > entry: > %adds = add nsw i32 %x, %y > %addu = add nuw i32 %x, %y > %cond = select i1 %b, i32 %adds, i32 %addu > ret i32 %cond > } It is important to not propagate the nsw/nuw between the two SCEV expressions (which unification would do today, can I consider that a bug or is it a feature?). So we work-around it by not informing...

...0x00000000,0 > .set noreorder > .set nomacro > .set noat > # BB#0: > lui $2, %hi(_gp_disp) > addiu $2, $2, %lo(_gp_disp) > addiu $sp, $sp, -64 > $tmp2: > .cfi_def_cfa_offset 64 > sw $ra, 60($sp) # 4-byte Folded Spill > $tmp3: > .cfi_offset 31, -4 > addu $gp, $2, $25 > sw $7, 76($sp) > sw $6, 72($sp) > sw $5, 68($sp) > lw $3, %got(__stack_chk_guard)($gp) > lw $1, 0($3) > sw $1, 56($sp) > sw $4, 52($sp) > sw $zero, 48($sp) // i > sw $zero, 44($sp) // val > sw $zero, 40($sp) // sum > addiu $1, $sp, 68 > sw $1, 16($...

...a.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 2:27 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. > > But on this example: > > define i32 @func(i1 zeroext %b, i32 %x, i32 %y) { >> entry: >> %adds = add nsw i32 %x, %y >> %addu = add nuw i32 %x, %y >> %cond = select i1 %b, i32 %adds, i32 %addu >> ret i32 %cond >> } > > > It is important to not propagate the nsw/nuw between the two SCEV > expressions (which unification would do today, can I consider that a bug or > is it a feature?). &g...

...udia > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] as: unrecognized option '-meabi=4' > > > > > > Hi > > > In my install directory under bin , I had > > llvm-c++,llvm-g++,llvm-gconv > > I tested one sample program > > > #llvm-c++ addu.c -o addu-arm > > as: unrecognized option '-meabi=4' > > How do i solve this issue > > > Thanks > > Yuvi R > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM, raj raja <yuvaraj.addu at gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for your reply > > I got error > > /...

...cted comma after "nomacro" /tmp/cc-9SOWh0.s:15: Error: no such instruction: `addiu $sp,$sp,-48' /tmp/cc-9SOWh0.s:16: Error: no such instruction: `sw $ra,44($sp)' /tmp/cc-9SOWh0.s:17: Error: no such instruction: `sw $fp,40($sp)' /tmp/cc-9SOWh0.s:18: Error: no such instruction: `addu $fp,$sp,$zero' /tmp/cc-9SOWh0.s:19: Error: no such instruction: `sw $zero,32($fp)' /tmp/cc-9SOWh0.s:20: Error: no such instruction: `lui $2,%hi($.str)' /tmp/cc-9SOWh0.s:21: Error: no such instruction: `addiu $4,$2,%lo($.str)' /tmp/cc-9SOWh0.s:22: Error: suffix or operands invalid fo...

in llvm-3.6.2.src 1. when I put this around one of my instruction definitions in my target "InstrInfo.td" file, let TwoOperandAliasConstraint = "$dst = $rs1" in { } I do not see any TIED_TO in the generated GenInstrInfo.inc file for the OperandInfo used by the instruction, the question is what am I doing wrong ? 2. I've noticed that TwoOperandAliasConstraint

Tim, yes, I am on a very unique architecture, just about every instruction has a signed and unsigned operation (ie, adds, addu, subs, subu, etc...) and we handle signed and unsigned somewhat differently. I'm not sure how we'll handle this yet, very worst case scenario is to propagate the info from clang but that's not ideal, obviously. Thanks for all the replies! On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Tim Northo...

Which part of the generated code do you think is not correct? Could you be more specific? I compiled this program with clang and ran it on a mips board. It returns the expected result (21). On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Jonathan <gamma_chen at yahoo.com.tw> wrote: > I check the Mips backend for the following C code fragment compile result. > It seems not correct. Is it my

I check the Mips backend for the following C code fragment compile result. It seems not correct. Is it my misunderstand or it's a bug. //ch8_3.cpp #include <stdarg.h> int sum_i(int amount, ...) { int i = 0; int val = 0; int sum = 0; va_list vl; va_start(vl, amount); for (i = 0; i < amount; i++) { val = va_arg(vl, int); sum += val; } va_end(vl);

Thanks for the replies guys but I think I should have phrased my question better... looking at the Mips backend there are machine instructions that operate on signed and unsigned data, such as add and addu. And like Mips, I need to specify unsigned specific instructions, so how do these get chosen between if the LLVM IR does not carry type data? A very general point in the right direction is all i need and would most appreciate it. sorry if i'm being dense. sam James Molloy-3 wrote: > >...

...t is zero > sub $reg3,$reg3,1 //To subtract 1 from the shifting amount > sll $reg2,$reg2,1 //Shift by 1 bit > j #BB_1 //Branch back to the begining of the routine > #BB_2: addu $reg1,$reg2,$zero //Transfer the completed shift data to the original destination register > > Since you guys mentioned that the MI are represented in MachineSSA form, i imagined my routine represented by virtual registers would look something like this: > > andi $v...

Hi Sam, I am not a MIPS expert by any means, so YMMV, but: MIPS addu only differs to "add" in its (non)setting of the overflow flag. Because LLVM doesn't provide a way via the IR to access the overflow flag, a special notation isn't required in the IR to distinguish the two operations. Do you have another example? Cheers, James -----Original Me...

Is that why we do not deduce +<nsw> from "add nsw" either? Is that an intrinsic limitation of creating a context-invariant expressions from a Value* or is that a limitation of our implementation (our unification not considering the nsw flags)? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:39 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 12:21 PM, Alexandre Isoard via

Hi all. if there is limitation for the registers to be used together in an instruction, should i try to change it in the register allocation pass or should i try it somewhere else?? example. lets say we have to add 2 registers addu rx ,ry ,rz there is a limitation that says that the two regs that will be added they can not have the same mod4 so we can add r1 , r2 but cannot add r1,r5. thanks Stavropoulos Nikos -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/Register-allocation-limitations-tp62967....

...(*aligned_s1)) aligned_s1++; This loop gets lowered under -O3 to: $BB0_5: lui $3, 32896 lui $7, 65278 ori $3, $3, 32896 ###### Materialize 0x80808080 lw $8, 4($2) nop and $9, $8, $3 ori $7, $7, 65279 ###### Materialize -(0x01010101) addiu $2, $2, 4 xor $3, $9, $3 addu $7, $8, $7 and $3, $3, $7 beq $3, $zero, $BB0_5 There are a ton of unused caller-saved registers in this small function, so I expected the constant materialization to be hoisted out of the tight loop. I'm still learning about the new register allocator and am not immediately able t...

...UINT16((s2) >> 16) I'm guessing, from what I've seen, I may just need to check in my Pats whether a zext or sext has been used on the value to be operated on..? Thanks, Sam James Molloy-3 wrote: > > Hi Sam, > > I am not a MIPS expert by any means, so YMMV, but: MIPS addu only differs > to > "add" in its (non)setting of the overflow flag. Because LLVM doesn't > provide > a way via the IR to access the overflow flag, a special notation isn't > required in the IR to distinguish the two operations. > > Do you have another example...

...s8,sp c: 24020004 li v0,4 10: afc20008 sw v0,8(s8) 14: 24020005 li v0,5 18: afc20004 sw v0,4(s8) 1c: 8fc30008 lw v1,8(s8) 20: 8fc20004 lw v0,4(s8) 24: 00000000 nop 28: 00621021 addu v0,v1,v0 2c: afc20000 sw v0,0(s8) 30: 03c0e821 move sp,s8 .... Is there any pass or buildin command for llvm to generate this. llvm-dis will only generate the assembly code and not the hexcode. Moreover how can I compile c code for mips using llvm-gcc? llvm-gcc -b...