search for: extractelts

I have added a few PPC-specific DAG combines in the past that follow this pattern on specific operations. Now that it appears that this would be useful to do on yet another operation, I'm wondering what people think about doing this in the target-independent DAG Combiner for any legal/custom operation on the target. TL; DR; The generic pattern would look like this: (build_vector (op

Hi, I have an issue with pattern matching. I have the following SelectionDAG: t13: i32 = extract_vector_elt t2, Constant:i64<1> That I am trying to match with the following pattern: def : Pat<(extractelt (v4i16 SingleReg:$v), 1), (SRADd1 SingleReg :$v, (i64 16))>; But for some reason the pattern does not match. It seems to be due to the fact extract_vector_elt's result

Hi Eli, Thanks for your response. Please see my responses below. On 10/12/2011 00:28, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am writing a back-end for a processor that has complex type registers. >> It has two functional units to perform complex multiplications. >> From clang,

Hi all, I am writing a back-end for a processor that has complex type registers. It has two functional units to perform complex multiplications. From clang, I emulate a complex multiplication using vectors and, at the IR, I got this tblgen-friendly pattern (real component) : (set RARegs:$dst, (insertelt RARegs:$src, (i16 (trunc (add (ncmul (sext (i16

Thanks so much for your feedback Simon. I am not sure that what I am proposing here is at odds with what you're referring to (here and in the PR you linked). The key difference AFAICT is that the pattern I am referring to is probably more aptly described as "reducing scalarization" than as "vectorization". The reason I say that is that the inputs are vectors and the output

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am writing a back-end for a processor that has complex type registers. > It has two functional units to perform complex multiplications. >  From clang, I emulate a complex multiplication using vectors and, at > the IR, I got this tblgen-friendly pattern (real component) : >

Absolutely. We do it for scalars, so it would likely be a matter of just extending it. But that is one example. The issue of extracting elements, performing an operation on each element individually and then rebuilding the vector is likely more prevalent than that. At least I think that is the case, but I'll do some analysis to see if it is so or not. On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 6:15 PM Craig

On Dec 9, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Ivan Llopard wrote: > Hi Eli, > Thanks for your response. Please see my responses below. > > On 10/12/2011 00:28, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am writing a back-end for a processor that has complex type registers.

Hi Guys, I have a taget instruction which take a vec4 and returns a vec4.( say instruction “vec4:$dst mod( vec4:$src)" ) And I want to use it to match i an ir instruction/intrinsic function( say " float:$dst llvm.irmod( vec4:$src)" which takes a vec4, output a float. I think the procedure is: when I see the intrinsic llvm.irmod, I need to call "extractlt(

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eli, > Thanks for your response. Please see my responses below. > > > On 10/12/2011 00:28, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan<ivanllopard at gmail.com> >>  wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am writing

On 10/12/2011 01:32, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli, >> Thanks for your response. Please see my responses below. >> >> >> On 10/12/2011 00:28, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan<ivanllopard at gmail.com> >>> wrote:

i'm getting a Could not infer all types in pattern! error in my backend. it is happening on the following instruction: VGETITEM: (set GPR:{i32:f32}:$rD, (extractelt:{i32:f32} VR:{v4i32:v4f32}:$rA, GPR:i32:$rB)). how do i make it use appropriate types? in other words if it is f32 then use v4v32 and if it is i32 then use v4f32. i'm not sure even where to start? any help is appreciated.

Hi list, I'm trying to match a particular pattern into the SDag which looks like this: // non-commutative multiplication def ncmul : SDNode<"ISD::MUL" , SDTIntBinOp, [SDNPAssociative]>; def mula_pat : PatFrag<(ops node:$a, node:$b), (add (ncmul

Hi there, I'm trying to map extract_vector_elt use the following pattern in tbl file. Def : Pat <(i64 (extractelt v2i32:$src, 0)), (i64 (SRLIMM GPR:$src, 32))>; But the tblgen shows : Type inference contradiction found , forcing v2i32 to have a vector element of type i64 But the manual says this instruction allows return type to be larger than element type. Anyone can show me any

On 3/30/2016 4:42 PM, Rail Shafigulin via llvm-dev wrote: > i'm getting a > > Could not infer all types in pattern! > > error in my backend. it is happening on the following instruction: > > VGETITEM: (set GPR:{i32:f32}:$rD, (extractelt:{i32:f32} > VR:{v4i32:v4f32}:$rA, GPR:i32:$rB)). > > how do i make it use appropriate types? in other words if it is f32 then

On Wednesday 02 December 2009 17:24, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:08 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday 02 December 2009 16:51, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > >> > I'm working on some of the AVX insert/extract instructions.  They're >

On 11/11/2017 12:44 PM, Amara Emerson wrote: > >> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Aditya Nandakumar <proaditya at gmail.com >> <mailto:proaditya at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> The current DAGCombine, being constructed on top of SDAG, has a kind >>> of built-in CSE and automatic DCE. How will things change, if >>> they'll change, in

> On Nov 11, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 11/11/2017 12:44 PM, Amara Emerson wrote: >> >>> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Aditya Nandakumar <proaditya at gmail.com <mailto:proaditya at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The current DAGCombine, being constructed on top of

Hi all, Is there any optimization pass which can move vector ops out of loops ? For example: typedef short short2 __attribute__((ext_vector_type(2))); short2 a[50],b[50],c; void test() { for (i=0; i<50; i++) { c.y += a[i].x * b[i].y; } } clang in -O3 gives me the following IR: @i = common global i32 0, align 4 @a = common global [50 x <2 x i16>] zeroinitializer, align 4

> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 11/10/2017 11:12 AM, Amara Emerson via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> This RFC concerns the design and architecture of a generic machine instruction combiner/optimizer framework to be developed as part of the GISel pipeline. As we transition from