Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "customlowerresult".
Did you mean:
customlowerresults
2009 Jan 18
2
[LLVMdev] PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5
...So we will need to change the interface of
> > LowerOperation() to pass an extra argument called Results, which is an
> > array of SDValue. Targets will push the result values in this array and
> > then we can replace values in ExpandIntegerOperand(). Very much like
> > what CustomLowerResults() and ReplaceNodeResults() are doing currently.
> >
> > The problem is that do we want to change calls to LowerOperation() in
> > LegalizeDAG as well? I think probably that is the right approach to go
> > in the longer term. But currently I suggest that "Results"...
2009 Jan 16
2
[LLVMdev] PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5
...low targets to handle
illegal operands. So we will need to change the interface of
LowerOperation() to pass an extra argument called Results, which is an
array of SDValue. Targets will push the result values in this array and
then we can replace values in ExpandIntegerOperand(). Very much like
what CustomLowerResults() and ReplaceNodeResults() are doing currently.
The problem is that do we want to change calls to LowerOperation() in
LegalizeDAG as well? I think probably that is the right approach to go
in the longer term. But currently I suggest that "Results" be the last
argument to LowerOperation(...
2009 Jan 18
0
[LLVMdev] PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5
...ANY_EXTEND(N)); break;
This is wrong if PromoteIntOp_ANY_EXTEND returned a value with
no node. Likewise for all the others. Better I think to simply
handle the custom case immediately and return rather than trying
to share code with these other cases.
Also, you could just make DAGTypeLegalizer::CustomLowerResults
more general, and use that.
Ciao,
Duncan.
2009 Jan 16
0
[LLVMdev] PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5
...; illegal operands. So we will need to change the interface of
> LowerOperation() to pass an extra argument called Results, which is an
> array of SDValue. Targets will push the result values in this array and
> then we can replace values in ExpandIntegerOperand(). Very much like
> what CustomLowerResults() and ReplaceNodeResults() are doing currently.
>
> The problem is that do we want to change calls to LowerOperation() in
> LegalizeDAG as well? I think probably that is the right approach to go
> in the longer term. But currently I suggest that "Results" be the last
> ar...
2009 Jan 19
1
[LLVMdev] PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5
...PromoteIntOp_ANY_EXTEND returned a value with
> no node. Likewise for all the others. Better I think to simply
> handle the custom case immediately and return rather than trying
> to share code with these other cases.
>
Taken care of.
> Also, you could just make DAGTypeLegalizer::CustomLowerResults
> more general, and use that.
>
Taken care of.
The revised patch is attached.
> Ciao,
>
> Duncan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: patch.txt
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 12606 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org...
2009 Jan 09
0
[LLVMdev] PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5
Hi Sanjiv,
> Well, the first email is here.
>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20081013/068667.html
thanks, I remember now (more or less). So would something like ReplaceNodeResults
solve the problem?
Ciao,
Duncan.
2009 Jan 09
3
[LLVMdev] PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5
Well, the first email is here.
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20081013/068667.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan Sands [mailto:baldrick at free.fr]
Sent: Thu 1/8/2009 8:41 PM
To: Sanjiv Kumar Gupta - I00171
Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5
Hi Sanjiv,
> We are targetting a reasonably functional PIC16 backend for llvm