search for: extloads

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: >> Yes, it is breaking during the legalize phase, depending on which >> TargetLowering callback method we use. For example, Custom will let it >> through to instructions selection, which it breaks at the

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Ahmed, > > Yes, we do not have an 8 bit type and do not support 8 bit loads/extloads. > > For your first post, I imagine that anything that the DAGCombiner does it > could undo EXCEPT deciding to opt to a type that is not allowed, No, I think the SelectionDAG legalization should be able to "undo" any illegal type as well. For loads/stores, this usually means...

Hi Chandler, all, Why aren't the vector [zs]extloads introduced by SSE4.1/AVX2 declared legal? Is it a simple oversight, or did I miss a deeper reason? While cleaning up PMOV*X patterns, I stumbled upon this braindead testcase: %0 = load <8 x i8>* %src, align 1 %1 = zext <8 x i8> %0 to <8 x i16> turning into:...

-----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Eli Friedman Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:01 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Possible error in LegalizeDAG On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I'm still trying to track down some

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > On the hardware that I am targeting, which is not a CPU, I must support > i8 loads, however the hardware only supports natively 32bit aligned > loads, therefore I have to read in 4 i8's and unpack them and shift them > based on the read address. So any i8 load has a 75% chance of being >

...to handle everything or 2) nodes that aren't going to be legal anyways should not be produced (though this obviously contradicts the term pre-legalize). The SelectionDAGBuilder does not generate 8 bit loads nor 8 bit exloads. There are other places we could fix this issue, accepting 8 bit extloads and then expanding it back further down the pipe, but this does seem a bit hacky. Thanks. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: > +Chandler, Hal, Owen, who - among others - know much more than I do. > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:57 AM...

...t seem good to generate something pre-legalize (target-independent) that you can't then handle when you find that it's illegal in the very next step that is legalization. I'm guessing, from what you and others have said, that it's just expected that every machine will support 8-bit extloads and if not then the target should handle the undoing of the target-independent generated 'optimization' via LegalizeDAG and TargetLowering callback methods? 3) I have not tried running it on any other target, sorry, I suppose I should but I didn't want to take the time if I'm not f...

...xygen/html/classllvm_1_1SDValue.html>(); LegalOperations is false for the first pre-legalize pass and true for the post-legalize pass. The first pass is target-independent yes? So that makes sense. The issue we are having is this: we don't support 8 bit loads and we don't support 8 bit extloads, so we end up with LD1 with zext after either the first pass or the second pass (depending on the test case). If we add the TargetLowering callback method setLoadExtAction(ISD::ZEXTLOAD, MVT::i8, Expand) then it crashes during legalization and if we don't have that in then it crashes during ins...

I'm still trying to track down some alignment issues with loads(i.e. 8/16 bit loads being turned into 32bit sign extending loads) and I cannot for the life of me seem to figure out how to enter this section of code: // If this is an unaligned load and the target doesn't support it, // expand it. if (!TLI.allowsUnalignedMemoryAccesses()) { unsigned

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the reply: > > So should LLVM continue to assume 8-bit byte addressing? It would be nice, > not only to us but potential future machines, to have a permanent fix to > this assumption? This sounds reasonable yes? > > Marking them as Custom in XXXISelLowering still produces error, the

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I'm still trying to track down some alignment issues with loads(i.e. 8/16 > bit loads being turned into 32bit sign extending loads) and I cannot for the > life of me seem to figure out how to enter this section of code: > > // If this is an unaligned load and the target doesn't support

Please open a bugzilla ticket and attach your testcase. It will allow us to debug and fix the problem. Thanks - Elena From: JinGu [mailto:jingu at codeplay.com] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 00:38 To: Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>; daniel_l_sanders at apple.com <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com>; Jon Chesterfield <jonathanchesterfield at

> so I think we need to use non-extending load for element size less than 8bit on "DAGTypeLegalizer::SplitVecOp_EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT" like this roughly. > if (N->getOperand(0).getValueType().getVectorElementType().getSizeInBits() < 8) { > return DAG.getLoad(N->getValueType(0), dl, Store, StackPtr, MachinePointerInfo()); > } else { > return

Hi, For my research, I need to reshape the current ARM backend to support armv2a. Zero-extend half word load (ldrh) is not supported by armv2a, so I need to make the code generation to not generate ldrh instructions. I want to replace all those instances with a 32-bit load (ldr) and then and the result with 0xffff to mask out the upper bits. These are the modifications that I have made to

> extends the elements to 8bit and stores them on stack. Store is responsible for zero-extend. This is the policy... - Elena -----Original Message----- From: jingu at codeplay.com [mailto:jingu at codeplay.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 17:45 To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>; daniel_l_sanders at apple.com Subject: Re: Question

> On Nov 13, 2017, at 11:53 AM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Amara, > >> On Nov 10, 2017, at 9:12 AM, Amara Emerson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> This RFC concerns the design and architecture of a generic machine

Hi All, I have a question about splitting 'EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT' with 'v2i1'. I have a llvm IR code snippet as following: llvm IR code snippet: for.body: ; preds = %entry, %for.cond %i.022 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %inc, %for.cond ] %0 = icmp ne <2 x i32> %vecinit1, <i32 0, i32 -23> %1 = extractelement <2 x i1>

Thanks for the suggestions Vedant. Synthetic debug info is an interesting idea that sounds worthwhile. Could this be implemented as a “wrapper” pass that automatically decorates debug info before and after a specific pass run in opt (or pipeline of passes)? It might be useful to be able to easily enable this for a wide range of tests without having to manually modify each run line, perhaps as an

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Matt Johnson <johnso87 at crhc.illinois.edu> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > On 07/27/2011 04:59 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Matt Johnson >> <johnso87 at crhc.illinois.edu>  wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>>     I'm writing a backend for a target which only supports 4-byte,

Hello all, I am working on adding atomics support to the AVR backend. Because the target can only have one core, it is sufficient to: - Save the status register - Disable interrupts - Do the nonatomic LOAD/STORE/SWAP/ADD - Restore the status register I’d really like to be able to do this at the IR level. What I want to do is write a custom lowering hook to convert ISD::ATOMIC_LOAD