Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "implicitkil".
Did you mean:
implicitkill
2009 May 13
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: Code Gen Change!
...the booleans, you pass in a flag that has bits set
to indicate what state the register is in:
namespace RegState {
enum {
Define = 0x1,
Implicit = 0x2,
Kill = 0x4,
Dead = 0x8,
EarlyClobber = 0x10,
ImplicitDefine = Implicit | Define,
ImplicitKill = Implicit | Kill
};
}
class MachineInstrBuilder {
MachineInstr *MI;
public:
explicit MachineInstrBuilder(MachineInstr *mi) : MI(mi) {}
/// addReg - Add a new virtual register operand...
///
const
MachineInstrBuilder &addReg(unsigned RegNo, unsigned flags = 0,...
2009 May 13
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: Code Gen Change!
...set
> to indicate what state the register is in:
>
> namespace RegState {
> enum {
> Define = 0x1,
> Implicit = 0x2,
> Kill = 0x4,
> Dead = 0x8,
> EarlyClobber = 0x10,
> ImplicitDefine = Implicit | Define,
> ImplicitKill = Implicit | Kill
> };
> }
[...]
> MachineInstrBuilder &addReg(unsigned RegNo, unsigned flags = 0,
> unsigned SubReg = 0) const {
Hi Bill,
I definitely like this change. The staccato bool arguments are
impossible to read. One comment:
If I forg...
2012 Jan 25
0
[LLVMdev] Best way to interface with MSVC _ftol2 runtime function for fptoui?
...oint, where you can rewrite it.
>
> Look at the code handling INLINE_ASM. You need to do the same, except you have fixed arguments STUses=1 and STClobbers=1, ST*=0. That should greatly simplify the code you need.
That makes sense; thanks for the tip. Are the getCopyToReg(ST0) and
addReg(ST0, ImplicitKill) calls on the expanded MI at all necessary
then since X86FloatingPoint seems to manage that all internally?
> When SSE is available, x87 registers are only ever used for f80.
It looks like it always tries to use fisttp when converting to i64.
This bitcode:
define i64 @foo(double %x) nounwind...
2012 Jan 25
2
[LLVMdev] Best way to interface with MSVC _ftol2 runtime function for fptoui?
On Jan 24, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Joe Groff wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote:
>> X86FloatingPoint.cpp with comments is all you get.
>
> Thanks for your help, Jakob. Attached is a first-pass attempt at a
> patch. I don't want to post to -commits yet because I have no idea if
> this is fully correct, but it seems