search for: falseval

...ent(); bool Changed = false; - Value *TrueVal = ConstantInt::getTrue(TrueSucc->getContext()); + Value *TrueVal = ConstantInt::getTrue(BranchCond->getContext()); BasicBlockEdge TrueE(Parent, TrueSucc); Changed |= propagateEquality(BranchCond, TrueVal, TrueE); - Value *FalseVal = ConstantInt::getFalse(FalseSucc->getContext()); + Value *FalseVal = ConstantInt::getFalse(BranchCond->getContext()); BasicBlockEdge FalseE(Parent, FalseSucc); Changed |= propagateEquality(BranchCond, FalseVal, FalseE); Any other ideas about where I should look for the root pro...

...een studying LLVM and started to create a new backend for a new RISC architecture. Now I need some help to get forward with my project. I'm quite new to compiling techniques so I'm sorry for the stupid questions. Question 1: My idea is to lower the select SDNode as follows: %res1 = %falseVal %res2 = setc %trueVal, %condition Where setc is conditional mov. The question is how can I make sure that %res1 and %res2 are assigned to the same phsyical register? (I'm assuming you can only define virtual register once, is this correct assumption?) Question 2: What kind of informatio...

...gt; > - Value *TrueVal = ConstantInt::getTrue(TrueSucc->getContext()); > + Value *TrueVal = ConstantInt::getTrue(BranchCond->getContext()); > BasicBlockEdge TrueE(Parent, TrueSucc); > Changed |= propagateEquality(BranchCond, TrueVal, TrueE); > > - Value *FalseVal = ConstantInt::getFalse(FalseSucc->getContext()); > + Value *FalseVal = ConstantInt::getFalse(BranchCond->getContext()); > BasicBlockEdge FalseE(Parent, FalseSucc); > Changed |= propagateEquality(BranchCond, FalseVal, FalseE); > > Any other ideas about where I sh...

...::EmitCustomSelect. > SDValue MBlazeTargetLowering::LowerSELECT_CC(SDValue Op, > SelectionDAG &DAG) const { > SDValue LHS = Op.getOperand(0); > SDValue RHS = Op.getOperand(1); > SDValue TrueVal = Op.getOperand(2); > SDValue FalseVal = Op.getOperand(3); > DebugLoc dl = Op.getDebugLoc(); > unsigned Opc; > > SDValue CompareFlag; > if (LHS.getValueType() == MVT::i32) { > Opc = MBlazeISD::Select_CC; > CompareFlag = DAG.getNode(MBlazeISD::ICmp, dl, MVT::i32, LHS, RHS) > .ge...

I am trying to add support for select_cc. In ARM it can be implemented with: mov $dst, $falseVal cmp $a, $b moveq $dst, $trueVal My current strategy is to expand select_cc in two ARM nodes: ARM::SELECT and ARM::CMP. The two nodes would be connected by a flag edge. ARM::CMP would then expand to "cmp $a, $b". This instruction has no results. It only alters the CPSR (current program...

Hi Rafael, > I am trying to add support for select_cc. In ARM it can be implemented > with: > > mov $dst, $falseVal > cmp $a, $b > moveq $dst, $trueVal The more normal ARM code, as produced by assembly writers and compilers that I've seen, is cmp $a, $b moveq $dst, $trueVal movne $dst, $falseVal e.g. at the end of a function returning r0 orr r0, r0, #0x40 cmp r0, #0xfe moveq...

...t to do is turn this into // a series of instructions that in the end become a compare // and a cmov_logical { MachineOperand Dst = MI->getOperand(0); MachineOperand TrueVal = MI->getOperand(1); MachineOperand FalseVal = MI->getOperand(2); MachineOperand CCFlag = MI->getOperand(3); CC = (INSTCC::CondCodes)MI->getOperand(3).getImm(); // Here I want to get the destination register of SET_CC instruction and place it as the first addReg TODO(Get setcc destin...

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I am attempting to lower the selectCC instruction to the instruction set of > the backend I'm working on and I cannot seem to find a way to correctly > implement this instruction. I know how this instruction should get > implemented; I just have yet to find a way to do it. I want the select_cc

...tate -loop-vectorize -instcombine 1. Running pass 'Function Pass Manager' on module '<stdin>'. 2. Running pass 'Combine redundant instructions' on function '@strsave' --- Looking at the code, the issue is with this line: if (TrueVal == X && match(FalseVal, m_And(m_Specific(X), m_APInt(C))) && *Y == ~*C) In this case Y is a 128-bit APInt, and so is the value that C is extracted from, but the m_APInt matcher has code that calls getSplatValue() if the matched expression has vector type. So C ends up as an 8-bit value, triggering the as...

...tion Pass Manager' on module '<stdin>'. >> 2. Running pass 'Combine redundant instructions' on function '@strsave' >> >> --- >> >> Looking at the code, the issue is with this line: >> >> if (TrueVal == X && match(FalseVal, m_And(m_Specific(X), m_APInt(C))) && >> *Y == ~*C) >> >> In this case Y is a 128-bit APInt, and so is the value that C is >> extracted from, but the m_APInt matcher has code that calls getSplatValue() >> if the matched expression has vector type. So C...

I am attempting to lower the selectCC instruction to the instruction set of the backend I'm working on and I cannot seem to find a way to correctly implement this instruction. I know how this instruction should get implemented; I just have yet to find a way to do it. I want the select_cc instruction to be lowered into a comparison followed by a conditional move. I've attempted to use a

.... >>>> 2. Running pass 'Combine redundant instructions' on function '@strsave' >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Looking at the code, the issue is with this line: >>>> >>>> if (TrueVal == X && match(FalseVal, m_And(m_Specific(X), m_APInt(C))) >>>> && >>>> *Y == ~*C) >>>> >>>> In this case Y is a 128-bit APInt, and so is the value that C is >>>> extracted from, but the m_APInt matcher has code that calls getSplatValue() >>...

...function >> >>>> '@strsave' >> >>>> >> >>>> --- >> >>>> >> >>>> Looking at the code, the issue is with this line: >> >>>> >> >>>> if (TrueVal == X && match(FalseVal, m_And(m_Specific(X), >> >>>> m_APInt(C))) >> >>>> && >> >>>> *Y == ~*C) >> >>>> >> >>>> In this case Y is a 128-bit APInt, and so is the value that C is >> >>>> extracted fro...

Hi, Given a function like x < 0 ? 0 : x We can lower it to bic x, x, asr 31 because we can test if CC==LT && RHS==TrueVal==0 && LHS==FalseVal Further, give a function x > 255 ? 255 : (x < 0 ? 0 :x), we should lower it to: usat x, #8 However, things become more complicated if we have ((x < 0 ? 0 :x) << n ) & mask ... Because it will first be converted to x < 0 ? 0 : ((x << n) & mask) Now, it's hard to...

...t;>> '@strsave' >>> >>>> >>> >>>> --- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Looking at the code, the issue is with this line: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> if (TrueVal == X && match(FalseVal, m_And(m_Specific(X), >>> >>>> m_APInt(C))) >>> >>>> && >>> >>>> *Y == ~*C) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> In this case Y is a 128-bit APInt, and so is the value that C is >>> >&g...

...> >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> --- > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Looking at the code, the issue is with this line: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> if (TrueVal == X && match(FalseVal, m_And(m_Specific(X), > >>> >>>> m_APInt(C))) > >>> >>>> && > >>> >>>> *Y == ~*C) > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> In this case Y is a 128-bit APInt, and so is the value that...

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > On 15 January 2015 at 13:10, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> Yes. >> I've attached an updated patch that does the following: >> >> 1. Fixes the partialalias of globals/arguments >> 2. Enables partialalias for cases where nothing has been unified to

...dgeType::Assign, AttrNone)); + // Condition is irrelevant, it is evaluated, but not loaded, + // stored, or assigned + // The results of the select are assigned auto *TrueVal = Inst.getTrueValue(); Output.push_back(Edge(&Inst, TrueVal, EdgeType::Assign, AttrNone)); auto *FalseVal = Inst.getFalseValue(); @@ -768,7 +772,10 @@ static Optional<StratifiedAttr> valueToAttrIndex(Value *Val) { return AttrGlobalIndex; if (auto *Arg = dyn_cast<Argument>(Val)) - if (!Arg->hasNoAliasAttr()) + // Only pointer arguments should have the argument attribute, +...

Oh, sorry, i didn't rebase it when i changed the fix, you would have had to apply the first on top of the second. Here is one against HEAD On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Ana Pazos <apazos at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Daniel, your patch does not apply cleanly. Are you on the tip? > > The code I see there is no line if (QueryResult == MayAlias|| QueryResult == PartialAlias)

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