search for: i128s

I'm trying to use LLVM to create compiler-rt.o on Windows. I use this command from the compiler-rt project: [nix-shell:~/downloads/llvm-project/compiler-rt]$ clang -nostdlib -S -emit-llvm lib/builtins/udivti3.c -g -target x86_64-windows -DCRT_HAS_128BIT The resulting LLVM IR is: ================================================================= ; ModuleID = 'lib/builtins/udivti3.c'

Most probably you need to properly specify the calling convention the backend is using for calling the runtime functions. Or implement the stub for udivti3 that performs the necessary argument lifting. I guess there is no standard ABI document describing the intended calling convention here, so I'd just do what mingw64 does here and make everything here compatible. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:44 AM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info > wrote: > Most probably you need to properly specify the calling convention the > backend is using for calling the runtime functions. Thanks for the tip. Can you be more specific? Are you suggesting there is some config parameter I can set before running TargetMachineEmitToFile? Do you know what

I think from the C compiler's point of view, it is going to want it to work for any size above an i64, i.e. all the way up to an i128 so that if the user of the C compiler does this computation with __uint128_t's then it will Do The Right Thing TM. Basically, you want unsigned long a, b, c, d; .... const __uint128_t u = (__uint128_t) a + b; const unsigned long v = u >> 64; const

Yeah I had a think about it, and I think intrinsics are the wrong way to do it. So I'd say you are likely right. Bill. On 13 June 2010 04:33, Alistair Lynn <arplynn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bill- > > I think, ideally, the backend would be able to match arbitrary-precision arithmetic to add-with-carry or subtract-with-borrow through i65/i33. That would remove the need for the

> Yeah I had a think about it, and I think intrinsics are the wrong way > to do it. So I'd say you are likely right. For this to work well, the way the code generators handle flags will need to be improved: currently it is suboptimal, in fact kind of a hack. Ciao, Duncan.

I am seeing i128 from llvm-gcc on Alpha.  I know the calling convention for them, they are split into two registers, but I don't know if that should be handled in the frontend or the backend.  I would just as soon do it in the backend, but I didn't see any support in the new calling convention work for automatically splitting an argument into multiple registers. Is the backend the best

Hello, Does anyone know of any precedent for handling i128 in the calling convention on x86-32? I'm trying to write a testcase that returns an i128 value, and LLVM currently has only two 32-bit GPRs designated for returning integer values on x86-32. Dan

This is a maintenance release of Number Nine Imagine 128 DDX. There was one patch that has been languishing over at Patchwork X.org website (https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/122831/) for more than 2 years, so I decided to apply it, and release a new version. With that patch applied and one more small patch I authored, the DDX compiles cleanly without compilation warnings. Kevin Brace

I was able to get the loop to increment from -999 to 0 using IR directly. That got rid of the cmpq. The carry i was after was able to be obtained using the intrinsic @llvm.uadd.with.overflow.i64, however there is no way to add with carry and have it realise that the resulting *carry out* cannot exceed 1. It actually writes the carry to a byte, and then uses logical operations on it, which slows

This is the Xorg driver for Number Nine Imagine 128 (I128) video cards, which were sold in the mid-to-late 1990's for PCI & AGP bus systems. Alan Coopersmith (8): Build xz tarballs instead of bzip2 Fix spelling/wording issues gitlab CI: add a basic build test gitlab CI: stop requiring Signed-off-by in commits Handle -Wunused-const-variable warnings

Adam Jackson (3): Death to RCS tags. Fix distcheck i128 1.3.0 Alan Coopersmith (2): Replace references to XFree86/XF86Config in man page renamed: .cvsignore -> .gitignore Brice Goglin (1): Define I128_*_VERSION* using PACKAGE_VERSION_* Dave Airlie (3): i128: pciaccess conversion i128: drop ansi C wrapper i128: fixup typo Matthieu Herrb

On 12 June 2010 00:51, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli, >> >> On 11 June 2010 22:44, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote:

In both LLVM 2.9 and the current svn head, I get the following error when running llc % llc < fxp2.ll LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: 0xa5302b0: glue = carry_false [ID=7] on this code: target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" define i32 @fxpadd(i32 %cl) { entry: %0 = zext i32 %cl to i128 %1 = zext i32 %cl to i128 %2 = add i128 %1, %0 br label %L1001510 L1001510:

Hi everyone! Here, I have a question and am curious about i128. I want to know how the LLVM handle i128, because many compiler backend doesn't support i128 directly. So I am very curious and want to how the llvm handle this situation? Besides i128, such as i256, i512, even i24? Thanks. Best Regards Wu Zhao -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hi Bill- I think, ideally, the backend would be able to match arbitrary-precision arithmetic to add-with-carry or subtract-with-borrow through i65/i33. That would remove the need for the overflow intrinsics entirely. Alistair On 13 Jun 2010, at 02:27, Bill Hart wrote: > I was able to get the loop to increment from -999 to 0 using IR > directly. That got rid of the cmpq. > > The

Hello, Andrew > Is the backend the best place to do this or should I attempt to make > llvm-gcc not generate i128 in the first place? It depends whether i128 is a native type for alpha, or not. If it's not - frontend should not generate it. If it's native type then it might be useful just to declare new regclass with virtual 'wide' registers consist of register pairs and

Hello everybody, I'm seeing LLVM (v 3.1) abort when trying to generate code that multiplies or divides 128-bit integers on x86-32. Here is a complete example function: define %jl_value_t* @foo564(%jl_value_t*, %jl_value_t**, i32) { top: %3 = load %jl_value_t** %1, align 4, !dbg !5139 %4 = getelementptr inbounds %jl_value_t* %3, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg !5139 %5 = getelementptr %jl_value_t**

I think it's returned in 4 registers: eax, edx, esi, edi. Can someone confirm? Evan On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:33 AM, gohman at apple.com wrote: > Hello, > > Does anyone know of any precedent for handling i128 in the > calling convention on x86-32? I'm trying to write a testcase > that returns an i128 value, and LLVM currently has only two > 32-bit GPRs designated for

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Craig Smith <craig at ni.com> wrote: > In both LLVM 2.9 and the current svn head, I get the following error when running llc > > % llc < fxp2.ll > LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: 0xa5302b0: glue = carry_false [ID=7] > > on this code: > > target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" > > define i32 @fxpadd(i32 %cl) { > entry: