search for: constraintinfo

...ight be able to eliminate that flag and let LLVM deal with it. 3. LLVM needs code to select the alterinative constraint to use. To do this, the inline asm handler probably needs to be changed to store the alternatives separately to make it easier to walk them for the selection, perhaps using a SubConstraintInfo class in an array owned by ConstraintInfo. After the selection, which determines the one subconstraint index needed, the data for the selected alternatives could then be copied to the ConstraintInfo class to reduce impact on the code using it. I'm willing to have a go at doing this myself, bu...

The LLVM asm parser doesn't support multiple alternative constraints; you need to have Clang pick one tuple in the front end. See ChooseConstraintTuple in llvm-gcc for prior art. On Jul 29, 2010, at 11:36 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > I'm trying to fix the handling of multiple alternate constraints in > Clang (see

I'm trying to fix the handling of multiple alternate constraints in Clang (see http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Multi_002dAlternative.html#Multi_002dAlternative ). How should the constraints be represented in the .ll file? Clang currently will assert because the code generator sees a constraints string with the wrong number of comma-separated items. Basically, after some editing, it just

...m not too familiar yet with LLVM internals), which meant that I needed to handle multiple alternative constraints in other places besides just SelectionDAGBuilder::visitInlineAsm. Basically I see that there are three layers of contraint info classes, SDISelAsmOperandInfo -> AsmOperandInfo -> ConstraintInfo. Therefore, I implemented a different scheme, putting a ParseConstraints function in TargetLowering that returns a vector of AsmOperandInfo objects, and which will do the constraint selection without needing the DAG. I'm assuming the value info in the operands from the callsite object is suff...

...a DAG pointer either; it seems to be an argument in some places. Regardless, unifying the three loops that do pretty much the same thing is surely a good idea. > Basically I see that there are three layers of contraint info > classes, SDISelAsmOperandInfo -> AsmOperandInfo -> ConstraintInfo. > Therefore, I implemented a different scheme, putting a > ParseConstraints function in TargetLowering that returns a vector of > AsmOperandInfo objects, and which will do the constraint selection > without needing the DAG. I'm assuming the value info in the > operan...

...store + weight = CW_Memory; + break; } return weight; } Clang-diff: diff --git a/lib/Basic/TargetInfo.cpp b/lib/Basic/TargetInfo.cpp index 70ea235..26fc663 100644 --- a/lib/Basic/TargetInfo.cpp +++ b/lib/Basic/TargetInfo.cpp @@ -462,6 +462,7 @@ bool TargetInfo::validateInputConstraint(ConstraintInfo *OutputConstraints, case 'N': case 'O': case 'P': + case 'R': break; case 'r': // general register. Info.setAllowsRegister(); diff --git a/lib/Basic/Targets.cpp b/lib/Basic/Targets.cpp index 24a69ee..854e12b 100644 --- a/l...

...her; it seems to be an argument in some places. > Regardless, unifying the three loops that do pretty much the same thing is > surely a good idea. > > > Basically I see that there are three layers of contraint info classes, >> SDISelAsmOperandInfo -> AsmOperandInfo -> ConstraintInfo. Therefore, I >> implemented a different scheme, putting a ParseConstraints function in >> TargetLowering that returns a vector of AsmOperandInfo objects, and which >> will do the constraint selection without needing the DAG. I'm assuming the >> value info in the opera...

...er; it seems to be an argument in some > places. Regardless, unifying the three loops that do pretty much > the same thing is surely a good idea. > > > Basically I see that there are three layers of contraint info > classes, SDISelAsmOperandInfo -> AsmOperandInfo -> ConstraintInfo. > Therefore, I implemented a different scheme, putting a > ParseConstraints function in TargetLowering that returns a vector of > AsmOperandInfo objects, and which will do the constraint selection > without needing the DAG. I'm assuming the value info in the > operan...

...argument in some places. >> Regardless, unifying the three loops that do pretty much the same thing is >> surely a good idea. >> >> >> Basically I see that there are three layers of contraint info classes, >>> SDISelAsmOperandInfo -> AsmOperandInfo -> ConstraintInfo. Therefore, I >>> implemented a different scheme, putting a ParseConstraints function in >>> TargetLowering that returns a vector of AsmOperandInfo objects, and which >>> will do the constraint selection without needing the DAG. I'm assuming the >>> value i...

...>>> Regardless, unifying the three loops that do pretty much the same thing is >>> surely a good idea. >>> >>> >>> Basically I see that there are three layers of contraint info classes, >>>> SDISelAsmOperandInfo -> AsmOperandInfo -> ConstraintInfo. Therefore, I >>>> implemented a different scheme, putting a ParseConstraints function in >>>> TargetLowering that returns a vector of AsmOperandInfo objects, and which >>>> will do the constraint selection without needing the DAG. I'm assuming the >>...

...gument in >> some places. Regardless, unifying the three loops that do pretty >> much the same thing is surely a good idea. >> >> >> Basically I see that there are three layers of contraint info >> classes, SDISelAsmOperandInfo -> AsmOperandInfo -> ConstraintInfo. >> Therefore, I implemented a different scheme, putting a >> ParseConstraints function in TargetLowering that returns a vector >> of AsmOperandInfo objects, and which will do the constraint >> selection without needing the DAG. I'm assuming the value info in...

...dless, unifying the three loops that do pretty much the same thing is >>>> surely a good idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> Basically I see that there are three layers of contraint info classes, >>>>> SDISelAsmOperandInfo -> AsmOperandInfo -> ConstraintInfo. Therefore, I >>>>> implemented a different scheme, putting a ParseConstraints function in >>>>> TargetLowering that returns a vector of AsmOperandInfo objects, and which >>>>> will do the constraint selection without needing the DAG. I'm assuming...

...Regardless, unifying the three loops >>> that do pretty much the same thing is surely a good idea. >>> >>> >>> Basically I see that there are three layers of contraint info >>> classes, SDISelAsmOperandInfo -> AsmOperandInfo -> >>> ConstraintInfo. Therefore, I implemented a different scheme, >>> putting a ParseConstraints function in TargetLowering that returns >>> a vector of AsmOperandInfo objects, and which will do the >>> constraint selection without needing the DAG. I'm assuming the >>>...

...e three loops >>>> that do pretty much the same thing is surely a good idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> Basically I see that there are three layers of contraint info >>>> classes, SDISelAsmOperandInfo -> AsmOperandInfo -> >>>> ConstraintInfo. Therefore, I implemented a different scheme, >>>> putting a ParseConstraints function in TargetLowering that >>>> returns a vector of AsmOperandInfo objects, and which will do the >>>> constraint selection without needing the DAG. I'm assuming the...