Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "armexpandpseudo".
2018 Jan 16
2
Why do backend pass definitions call a seperate function just to call the constructor?
Things like this in `lib/Target/ARM/ARMExpandPseudoInsts.cpp`
FunctionPass *llvm::createARMExpandPseudoPass() {
> return new ARMExpandPseudo();
> }
And other functions have basically the same style.
What's the point of doing it this way instead of just calling `new
ARMExpandPseudo` in any place that you would have called this functio...
2018 Jan 16
0
Why do backend pass definitions call a seperate function just to call the constructor?
On 16 January 2018 at 20:40, Ahmed Samara via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Things like this in `lib/Target/ARM/ARMExpandPseudoInsts.cpp`
>
>> FunctionPass *llvm::createARMExpandPseudoPass() {
>> return new ARMExpandPseudo();
>> }
>
> And other functions have basically the same style.
>
> What's the point of doing it this way instead of just calling `new
> ARMExpandPseudo` in any pl...
2012 Jan 10
0
[LLVMdev] Possible fix for Bug 1388 - CPY instruction emitted on < ARMv6T
...or expects to be able to insert a copy instruction w/o side-effects, though, and not having one can potentially cause problems. Jakob would be able to more specifically comment on what's required there.
Off the top of my head, I'd consider leaving the copy instructions as pseudos until the ARMExpandPseudos pass. Keep track there of whether the CPSR is live and when we see a copy, do whatever tricks we can to try to use a good instruction, including reordering instructions if necessary and possible. That seems a bit heavyweight though, so hopefully someone has a better idea.
-Jim
On Jan 7, 2012, at...
2012 Jan 08
2
[LLVMdev] Possible fix for Bug 1388 - CPY instruction emitted on < ARMv6T
Hi,
I've been thinking about ways to get around this in the short term for some time,
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1388
An end-user workaround is possibly to use at least one register > r7 for the MOV form of the instruction.
In that case, what is listed in the bug as the CPY instruction (which is the ARMv6 version generated if both Rd and Rm are <= r7) will
become a valid MOV
2010 Nov 17
1
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [patch] ARM/MC/ELF add new stub for movt/movw in ARMFixupKinds
+llvmdev
-llvmcommits
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote:
> Sorta. getBinaryCodeForInst() is auto-generated by tablegen, so shouldn't be modified directly. The target can register hooks for instruction operands for any special encoding needs, including registering fixups, using the EncoderMethod string. For an example, have a look at the
2016 May 10
4
Atomic LL/SC loops in llvm
...loating-point, branches), the entire loop must fit within some amount of contiguous memory, and it must only execute a small number of instructions.
I see no way that those properties can be guaranteed in LLVM, without emitting the entire loop as a fixed blob.
For ARM, there's the newly-added ARMExpandPseudo::ExpandCMP_SWAP code, which basically does that. But, it seems kinda ugly, and a bit horrible to have to write all that code to generate a couple instructions -- and that's only handling cmpxchg, not atomicrmw, which would need similar treatment. And, even with all that, it's still creating...