search for: expandbuild_vector

...pe is not legal (in llvm's implementation). When we have a BUILD_VECTOR of these types with constant elements, LegalizeTypes first promotes the element types to i32, then builds a constant pool entry of type v16i32. This is wrong. I can fix it by truncating the elements back to i8 in ExpandBUILD_VECTOR. Does this seem like the right approach? I ask because we'll be relying on ConstantVector::get and getConstantPool to work even with elements of a type that's illegal for the target; currently, they do. (And I see no other way to fix it except to break the vector into scalars, wh...

...llvm's implementation). When we have a > BUILD_VECTOR of these types with constant elements, LegalizeTypes > first promotes the element types to i32, then builds a constant pool > entry of type v16i32. This is wrong. I can fix it by truncating the > elements back to i8 in ExpandBUILD_VECTOR. Does this seem like the > right approach? I ask because we'll be relying on ConstantVector::get > and getConstantPool to work even with elements of a type that's > illegal for the target; currently, they do. (And I see no other way > to fix it except to break the vec...

...ValueType(0))) { default: assert(0 && "This action is not supported yet!"); case TargetLowering::Custom: Tmp3 = TLI.LowerOperation(Result, DAG); if (Tmp3.getNode()) { Result = Tmp3; break; } // FALLTHROUGH case TargetLowering::Expand: Result = ExpandBUILD_VECTOR(Result.getNode()); break; } break; (so there is not even branch for TargetLowering::Legal). Maybe I'm just missing something. Thanks in advance, Hal -- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory

...This action is not supported yet!"); > case TargetLowering::Custom: > Tmp3 = TLI.LowerOperation(Result, DAG); > if (Tmp3.getNode()) { > Result = Tmp3; > break; > } > // FALLTHROUGH > case TargetLowering::Expand: > Result = ExpandBUILD_VECTOR(Result.getNode()); > break; > } > break; > (so there is not even branch for TargetLowering::Legal). Maybe I'm just > missing something. > > Thanks in advance, > Hal >

On Oct 26, 2008, at 1:03 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi all, I plan to turn on the new type legalization infrastructure > "LegalizeTypes" by default tomorrow. This is a redesign/ > reimplementation > of the logic currently in LegalizeDAG that turns (for example) 64 bit > arithmetic on a 32 bit machine into a series of 32 bit operations. > As well > as being a

Hi all, I plan to turn on the new type legalization infrastructure "LegalizeTypes" by default tomorrow. This is a redesign/reimplementation of the logic currently in LegalizeDAG that turns (for example) 64 bit arithmetic on a 32 bit machine into a series of 32 bit operations. As well as being a cleaner design, it also supports code generation for arbitrary precision integers such as

Hi Dale, I think Bob is right: the type legalizer shouldn't be turning v16i8 into v16i32, what should happen is that the return type of the BUILD_VECTOR continues to be v16i8, but the type of the operands changes to i32, so you end up with a BUILD_VECTOR that takes 16 lots of i32, and produces a v16i8. The target then has all the info it needs to produce the best code, but needs to be careful

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? > I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would > mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction > and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you > anticipating something more

On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman > <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector >> >> operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from >> >> LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant

...} SDValue ExpandLibCall(RTLIB::Libcall LC, SDNode *Node, bool isSigned, SDValue &Hi); - SDValue ExpandIntToFP(bool isSigned, MVT DestTy, SDValue Source, DebugLoc dl); SDValue EmitStackConvert(SDValue SrcOp, MVT SlotVT, MVT DestVT, DebugLoc dl); SDValue ExpandBUILD_VECTOR(SDNode *Node); @@ -306,12 +165,7 @@ SDValue ExpandBSWAP(SDValue Op, DebugLoc dl); SDValue ExpandBitCount(unsigned Opc, SDValue Op, DebugLoc dl); - bool ExpandShift(unsigned Opc, SDValue Op, SDValue Amt, - SDValue &Lo, SDValue &Hi, DebugLoc dl); - void ExpandShift...