search for: binaryoperation

Hello, I'm trying to compile vmkit on a x86_64 linux box with gcc-4.1.2, but I'm running into troubles because of various problems with casts between pointers and integers. Is there anybody who succeeded in this task? Az I see, some of the problems can be fixed with an appropriate typedef/macro declaration, but in VMCore/JavaObject.cpp some lowlevel bitmanipulation is used, to mark

Hi Zsombor, Thanks for the patch! Unfortunately I can't apply it because the llvm API has moved from BinaryOperator::create to BinaryOperator::Create. Are you using svn head? Now on the x86_64 part. There has been very little work on porting vmkit on x86_64. If you're having compilation problems, I suppose it's in the garbage collector directory (GCMmap2). If you could make the

Oh, no. I should have been more clear. The patch was not rejected, just lost in the daily shuffle. I already have my employer's approval to send this upstream, so I will prepare a patch against trunk this morning. > I proposed a similar patch to LLVM (left circular shift) around 10/2011. > > Parts of my patch did make it into trunk about a year after, but others > > did not.

On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:16 AM, Cameron McInally wrote: > Hey Andy, > > I proposed a similar patch to LLVM (left circular shift) around 10/2011. > Parts of my patch did make it into trunk about a year after, but others > did not. > > At that time, my solution was to add a binary operator to the IRBuilder, > since LCS fits in nicely with the other shift operators. But,

Andy, Here is the left circular shift operator patch. I apologize to the reviewer in advance. The patch has a good bit of fine detail. Any comments/criticisms? Some caveats... 1) This is just the bare minimum needed to make the left circular shift operator work (e.g. no instruction combining). 2) I tried my best to select operator names in the existing style; please feel free to change them as

Sorry, the old title didn't make sense. > Hi, > > I have doubts on the following transformation in InstCombineAddSub.cpp. Is > it always safe to preserve NSW/NUW in this case? > > // If this is a 'B = x-(-A)', change to B = x+A. This preserves NSW/NUW. if (Value

Hi, I am working on PR34474 and try to add a new optimization to InstCombine. Like in other parts of the visitMul function I add a Shl through the IR builder and create a new BinaryOp which I return from visitMul. If I understand correctly the new BinaryOp returned from visitMul should replace the original Instruction in the Worklist. However, I end up in an infinite loop and the Instruction

Hi Matthijs, Yes, I've turned off the link-time optimizations (otherwise it just propagates my constant vectors and immediate prints the result). :-) Here's essentially what I try to generate: void add(float z[4], float x[4], float y[4]) { z[0] = x[0] + y[0]; z[1] = x[1] + y[1]; z[2] = x[2] + y[2]; z[3] = x[3] + y[3]; } And here's part of the output from the online

There is in fact a transform out there somewhere that reverses yours. define i64 @foo(i64 %a) { %b = shl i64 %a, 5 %c = add i64 %b, %a ret i64 %c } becomes define i64 @foo(i64 %a) { %c = mul i64 %a, 33 ret i64 %c } ~Craig On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Your code seems fine. InstCombine can infinite loop if some other

On 08/26/2011 05:32, Stephan Falke wrote: > As stated in LLVM's language reference manual > (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_shl), both arguments for a shl need > to have the same type. In my case, original types were uint8 (value) and uint32 (shift) llvm lacks unsigned types which made it S1=i8 and S2=i32. It's technically nothing wrong with such combination, and code works

Hi llvmdev, I've noticed that there is no unary operator in LLVM. For unary operator such as Neg or Or operator, the IR builder just creates a binary operation with one dummy operand, 01823 <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BinaryOperator.html#a073c092ce74a122e898e435e60e84599> BinaryOperator <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BinaryOperator.html>

Hi, From the file HowToUseJIT.cpp, I learned how to insert some calcuation IR code like Add/Sub/Mul etc by using Instruction *Add = BinaryOperator::createAdd(One, ArgX, "addresult", BB); By following this way, it works well when I insert some IR code whose operand is integer type like IntTy, however, when I tried to insert similar thing whose operands are float point, I got the

How can I generate LLVM IR for both logical NEG (!)? For example, if I have Int32Ty a, For the bitwise NEG(~): c = ~a ; I can use the following API from LLVM: BinaryOperator *neg = BinaryOperator::CreateNeg(nbits, "bitwiseNEG", insertBefore); How, if I want to generate logical NEG: c = !a; what should I do for this? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

llvm does not automatically vectorize your scalar code (as least for now). You have to write gcc generic vector code or use vector builtins. Evan On May 8, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Matthijs, > > Yes, I've turned off the link-time optimizations (otherwise it just > propagates my constant vectors and immediate prints the result). :-) > > Here's

Hi Nicolas (at least, I suspect your signing of your mail with "Anton" was not intentional :-p), > I assume that's the same as the online demo's "Show LLVM C++ API code" > option (http://llvm.org/demo/)? I've tried that with a structure containing > four floating-point components but it also appears to add them individually > using extract/insert. Maybe

Hi Craig, thanks for digging into this. So InstCombine is the wrong place for fixing PR34474. Can you give me a hint where such an optimization should go into CodeGen? I am not really familiar with stuff that happens after the MidLevel. Cheers, Michael Am 13.09.2017 um 19:21 schrieb Craig Topper: > And that is less instructions. So from InstCombine's perspective the > multiply is

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:37 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 2:28 PM Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I have 1 concern about adding an explicit fneg op to IR: >>>

I get an assert @ Instructions.cpp:1774 when Op=llvm::Instruction::Shl. Should this assert avoid shift operations? Yuri

Hi Yuri, As stated in LLVM's language reference manual (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_shl), both arguments for a shl need to have the same type. What exactly are you trying to do? --Stephan > I get an assert @ Instructions.cpp:1774 when Op=llvm::Instruction::Shl. > Should this assert avoid shift operations? > > Yuri

Hi! currently instcombine does not detect constant diagonal matrix times vector, for example a.xx * [2 0] + a.yy * [0 3] can be optimized to a * [2 3] I have implemented this for float. I know that this assumes x * 0 = 0 which is not ieee compliant but i post it here in case it is interesting for someone. on my wish list there is still an option for target independent optimizations to have x