search for: addys

I've had this a long time but haven't submitted it yet. I've tried to mirror the ia32 setup, so there should be a new subdirectory src/libFLAC/ppc . The first two attachments go there. The third is a context diff for src/libFLAC/Makefile.am . I have some more modified files, which I figured I'd submit after the above are checked in and working for somebody other than me. If you

I want to generate the instruction like addi 40, r3 ! i.e. r3 = r3 + 40 The format i wrote is def ADDI : F1<opcode, (outs IntRegs:$dst), (ins IntRegs:$dst, i32imm:$imm) "addi $imm, $dst", [(set $IntRegs:$dst, (add $IntRegs:$dst, i32imm:$c))] but it is not compiling. what should be the format. vikram -- View this message

> > I don't think there's a real shortage of those, but I confess I'm not > sure why that's related. You'd need a representation for the LUI and > ADDI after instruction selection anyway. Yeah at the end we need a representation for LUI and ADDI. We were trying to break the 64 bit address from GlobalAddress node into two i32 register. We will add custom load/store

Sadly the latest optimization broke completely everything. The asm code isn't gas compliant. the libFLAC linker script has a typo, disabling the asm optimization and/or altivec won't let a correct build anyway. Instant fixes for the asm stuff: sed -i -e"s:;:\#:" on the lpc_asm.s to load address instead of addis+ori you could use lis and la and PLEASE use the @l(register)

Hi, There are some compilers with a aggressive optimization which restricts function pointer parameters. Let's say opt restrict_args. When restrict_args is turned on, compiler will treat all function pointer parameters as restrict one. int foo(int * a) + restrict_args opt equals to: int foo(int * restrict a) Here is a complete example: source code: extern int num; int foo(int * a) {

Hello everyone, I wanted to attach a node without affecting the present nodes in any way. I tried to use MVT::Glue for that but I think I'm missing something as I could not achieve the below state. LUI LUI | | ADDI ----GLUE---- ADDI | store I've few question about this and Glue node in general, I'll be happy to get some help on

I built llvm + clang from source, a github clone from today: clang version 11.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git 91aa67bf290bc7f877b1b90128284863bc31aa43) I compiled a small program: #include <stdint.h> int main() { uint8_t a = 2; uint8_t b = 5; uint8_t c = a * b; } $ clang -c -target riscv32 -march=rv32imc -g main.c Works fine. The dumped assembly seems to not know

Hello, Brief background: We are trying to support 64 bit pointers in RISCV 32 bit backend http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-June/132805.html To pass the legalizer we plan to break the 64 bit GlobalAddress into 32 bit GlobalAddress having the other 32 bit glued to the node. We could not find a direct way to convert the 64 bit GlobalAddress Node into a 32 bit node. For a GlobalAddress

Hi, I'm a beginner user using LLVM, and I'm trying to create a new backend using CPU0 Tutorial as reference. I have two instructions for add: add and addi (this is a pseudo instruction, but imediate operations is not available in architecture). That is my idea: When the LLVM instruction selection find addi r3 = r2 + value must convert to this: - load r1, value - add r3 = r2 + r1 In

According to the wiki at voip-info.org, the dial structure for using oh323 without a gatekeeper is: OH323/<exten>@<host>:<port> or OH323/<exten> The second option is valid only in the case where a gatekeeper is used. NOTE: OpenH323 library v1.12.0 has a bug in the parsing of the destination host. When this version is used then the above syntax should be:

Hi Vikram, The error message would be helpful, but the most likely problem is the duplication of $dst. It should probably be: def ADDI : F1<opcode, (outs IntRegs:$dst), (ins IntRegs:$src, i32imm:$imm) "addi $imm, $dst", [(set $IntRegs:$dst, (add $IntRegs:$src, i32imm:$c))]> { let Constraints = "$src = $dst"; } i.e. separate

Hi Johnny, Thank you for your help. I guess the pseudo instruction does not interfere in the generated assembly code. I'll check the file that describes the registers and I hope understand why the assembly code is printed wrong (now is printed things like add r1, r0, -40). Cheers, Carlos Carlos Almeida Jr On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Johnny Val <johnnydval at gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Simon Atanasyan <simon at atanasyan.com> > wrote: >> >> In case of MIPS O32 ABI we have to find a matching R_MIPS_LO16 >> relocation to calculate R_MIPS_HI16 one because R_MIPS_HI16 uses >> combined addend (AHI << 16) + (short)ALO where AHI is

I suspect this is a straight forward problem so I thought I'd ask. I'm developing a new backend. I recently updated from the LLVM repository and now my output assembly is branching to labels/blocks that have been removed. It had been working fine two weeks ago. What looks suspicious is the following message: TryTailMergeBlocks: BB#1, BB#3, BB#4 Looking for common tails of

Here's an example using the gcc toolchain for embedded 32 bit RISC-V (my HiFive1 board): #include <stdio.h> int foo(int i){ if (i < 100){ printf("%d\n", i); } return i; } int main(){ foo(10); return 0; } After compiling to a .o with -O2 -march=RV32IC we get (just looking at foo) 00000000 <foo>: 0: 1141 addi sp,sp,-16

Hi all, This is unusual for me to observe. I've a dhcp server running on Centos 5.3 and it takes a while to answer clients asking for an address. This is playing some havoc with certain scripts at startup not fully working because of the address delay. I've even used a dhcp helper address type function in my Juniper router but nothing has changed. Any ideas?

A little background info before I begin. I'm using samba-tng as a PDC (netbiosname 'TITANIUM' and the domain 'FOO') and samba-2.2.7a as a fileserver (netbiosname 'HAILSTORM') on the same machine. (different interfaces) The PDC is all set up and I've joined several windows 2000 clients and I encounterd no real problems. But all the files on the samba-2.2.a

By the way, since this is an optional code relaxation, we can think about it later. The first thing I would do is to add RISC-V support to lld without code shrinking relaxations, which I believe is doable by at most a few hundreds lines of code. On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev < >

We have a client machine (Windows 2000) that runs an application which spawns separate processes with each authenticate separately to the SAMBA server (3.0.13) When several of these processes run at the same time, SOME of the authentications fail with NT_STATUS_WRONG_PASSWORD written to the log.smbd file (error level 2)...I've attached a snippet of the log file to the end of this message All

I am working on an experimental target and trying to make sure that the load offset field is used to the best way. There appears to be some control over the architecture's offset range and whether the offset is too large and needs to be lowered/converted into a separate sequence of operations in DAGSelection? Can someone point me to what might be the case? For example, the difference between