Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "fp_unary_vxs_n_rm_rr".
2009 Jun 11
2
[LLVMdev] Regular Expressions
...down in the guts...]
class fp_cvt_scalar_VXSnrr<
// Parent: avx_fp_cvt_scalar_xs_node_rm_DEF_V#NAME#_128rr
bits<8> opc,
string OpcodeStr,
SDNode OpNode,
string DstType,
string SrcType,
int CustomPatterns = 0,
list<dag> patterns = [],
string asm = ""
>: fp_unary_vxs_n_rm_rr<
opc,
!cast<RegisterClass>(!patsubst("^f([0-9]+)","FR$1",!patsubst("^i([0-9]+)","GR$1",DstType))),
[...]
Basically, the code keys off type strings to deduce register classes and
other such things. This makes specifying things like converts...
2009 Jun 13
0
[LLVMdev] Regular Expressions
...r_VXSnrr<
> // Parent: avx_fp_cvt_scalar_xs_node_rm_DEF_V#NAME#_128rr
> bits<8> opc,
> string OpcodeStr,
> SDNode OpNode,
> string DstType,
> string SrcType,
> int CustomPatterns = 0,
> list<dag> patterns = [],
> string asm = ""
>> : fp_unary_vxs_n_rm_rr<
> opc,
> !cast<RegisterClass>(!patsubst("^f([0-9]+)","FR$1",!
> patsubst("^i([0-9]+)","GR$1",DstType))),
> [...]
Very clever.
> Basically, the code keys off type strings to deduce register classes
> and
> other such t...
2009 Jun 11
0
[LLVMdev] Regular Expressions
On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:39 PM, David Greene wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 June 2009 14:34, Dan Gohman wrote:
>> Can you describe what problem you're trying to solve here? Does it
>> really need Regular Expressions?
>
> Yes. I want TableGen to be able to infer lots of stuff
> programmatically.
> This helps tremendously when specifying things like, oh, AVX. :)
I
2009 Jun 09
3
[LLVMdev] Regular Expressions
On Tuesday 09 June 2009 14:34, Dan Gohman wrote:
> Can you describe what problem you're trying to solve here? Does it
> really need Regular Expressions?
Yes. I want TableGen to be able to infer lots of stuff programmatically.
This helps tremendously when specifying things like, oh, AVX. :)
We could invent our own pattern matching syntax, but why?
2009 Jun 15
2
[LLVMdev] Regular Expressions
...s_node_rm_DEF_V#NAME#_128rr
>> bits<8> opc,
>> string OpcodeStr,
>> SDNode OpNode,
>> X86ValueType DstType,
>> X86ValueType SrcType,
>> int CustomPatterns = 0,
>> list<dag> patterns = [],
>> string asm = ""
>>> : fp_unary_vxs_n_rm_rr<
>> opc, DstType.RegClass,
>
> This lets you encode whatever you want as properties of the dependent
> class, makes everything "type safe", and eliminates string munging.
> Would something like this work?
Yes, that will work for this case and is probably a b...