Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "cmpfcc".
2008 Sep 19
2
[LLVMdev] Custom Opcodes versus built-in opcodes
...elta added to their enum value.
Is this documented anywhere that getTargetNode is the preferred method
to use in a Custom Lowering function? Even the other backends use
getNode in their lowering functions with custom opcodes.
This is from SparcISelLowering.cpp
CompareFlag = DAG.getNode(SPISD::CMPFCC, MVT::Flag, LHS, RHS);
if (SPCC == ~0U) SPCC = FPCondCCodeToFCC(CC);
Opc = SPISD::BRFCC;
}
return DAG.getNode(Opc, MVT::Other, Chain, Dest,
DAG.getConstant(SPCC, MVT::i32), CompareFlag);
Micah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment w...
2008 Sep 19
0
[LLVMdev] Custom Opcodes versus built-in opcodes
...ue.
>
> Is this documented anywhere that getTargetNode is the preferred
> method to use in a Custom Lowering function? Even the other backends
> use getNode in their lowering functions with custom opcodes.
> This is from SparcISelLowering.cpp
> CompareFlag = DAG.getNode(SPISD::CMPFCC, MVT::Flag, LHS, RHS);
> if (SPCC == ~0U) SPCC = FPCondCCodeToFCC(CC);
> Opc = SPISD::BRFCC;
> }
> return DAG.getNode(Opc, MVT::Other, Chain, Dest,
> DAG.getConstant(SPCC, MVT::i32), CompareFlag);
Actually, I'm wrong, sorry about that. It looks...
2016 Apr 27
2
[Sparc] builtin setjmp / longjmp - need help to get past last problem
...n(ISD::ADDE, MVT::i64, Custom);
***************
*** 1808,1835 ****
const char *SparcTargetLowering::getTargetNodeName(unsigned Opcode) const {
switch ((SPISD::NodeType)Opcode) {
! case SPISD::FIRST_NUMBER: break;
! case SPISD::CMPICC: return "SPISD::CMPICC";
! case SPISD::CMPFCC: return "SPISD::CMPFCC";
! case SPISD::BRICC: return "SPISD::BRICC";
! case SPISD::BRXCC: return "SPISD::BRXCC";
! case SPISD::BRFCC: return "SPISD::BRFCC";
! case SPISD::SELECT_ICC: return "SPISD::SELECT_ICC";
! case SP...
2008 Sep 19
0
[LLVMdev] Custom Opcodes versus built-in opcodes
On Sep 18, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote:
> I am using lowering instructions and using custom opcodes that I can
> more easily directly map to my backend. These opcodes are then used
> to emit a custom set of instructions into the MachineBasicBlock.
> I’ve been able to get one to work correctly, however, I’ve ran into
> an issue where my second one is being
2008 Sep 18
4
[LLVMdev] Custom Opcodes versus built-in opcodes
I am using lowering instructions and using custom opcodes that I can
more easily directly map to my backend. These opcodes are then used to
emit a custom set of instructions into the MachineBasicBlock. I've been
able to get one to work correctly, however, I've ran into an issue where
my second one is being confused as a FRAMEADDR opcode instead of my
opcode.
DValue