search for: llvm_any_ti

Hi, On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; that I want to translate to the following instruction during instruction selection: def divm16_pseudo : MyPseudoInst< (outs aNh_0_7:$dst, aNh_0_7:$dst2), (ins

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 09:33, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic > > def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], > [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], > [IntrNoMem]>; > > that I want to translate to the

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > > i16 (divm16_pseudo …) > > stuff? > > I've tried > (i16, i16 (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) > and > ((i16, i16) (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) > and a few other variants without managing to get it through. > > Thanks again, > Mikael Are you

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:15 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 09:33, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic >> >> def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], >> [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], >>

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >>> <mailto:mikael.holmen at ericsson.com>> wrote: >>> >>> i16 (divm16_pseudo …) >>>

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >> <mailto:mikael.holmen at ericsson.com>> wrote: >> >> i16 (divm16_pseudo …) >> >> stuff? >> >> I've tried >> (i16, i16 (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) >> and >> ((i16, i16)

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:58, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > > > > On 03/30/2016 11:51 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >>>>

On 03/30/2016 11:51 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >>>> <mailto:mikael.holmen at

Hello, I was implementing the llvm_any_type in my intrinsic def int_csa_xxx : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], [llvm_i32_ty]>; as the following in its corresponding builtins in Builtins.def: BUILTIN(__builtin_xxx, "v.", "nt") the "t" was sufficient here to not perform any type checking. The type checking was handled in CGBuiltin.cpp. This was working until

Philip Reames wrote: >> 1. Introduce aAny. > > Having a generic any type seems fine. I assume you'd create something like > an llvm_any_type in Intrinsics.td? That's precisely what ifavpAny is about: integer, float, array, vector, pointer Any. aAny is meant for array-Any, and I wonder why so few people care about arrays. I'll go ahead with Any and llvm_any_type.

Hey all, I'd like to propose a new intrinsic for use in preventing optimizations from deleting IR due to constant propagation, dead code elimination, etc. # Background/Motivation In Rust we have a crate called `test` which provides a function, `black_box`, which is designed to be a no-op function that prevents constprop, die, etc from interfering with tests/benchmarks but otherwise

On 01/11, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > def int_experimental_directive : Intrinsic<[], [llvm_metadata_ty], > > [IntrArgMemOnly], > > "llvm.experimental.directive">; > > > > def int_experimental_dir_qual : Intrinsic<[], [llvm_metadata_ty], > > [IntrArgMemOnly], > >

I'm working on intrinsics for my backend and require intrinsic overloading. Is this supported? If so, are there any examples? Thanks, Micah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100629/04db85ea/attachment.html>

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I'm working on intrinsics for my backend and require intrinsic overloading. > Is this supported? If so, are there any examples? Some of the ARM NEON intrinsics are overloaded. -Eli

A Proposal for adding an experimental IR-level region-annotation infrastructure ============================================================================= Hal Finkel (ANL) and Xinmin Tian (Intel) This is a proposal for adding an experimental infrastructure to support annotating regions in LLVM IR, making use of intrinsics and metadata, and a generic analysis to allow transformations to

LLVM Weekly - #56, Jan 26th 2015 ================================ If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/56>. Welcome to the fifty-sixth issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex Bradbury](http://asbradbury.org).

David, one quick question, is there a way to preserve and associate a set of “properties, value info/attr ” to the given region using Token? Thanks, Xinmin From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of David Majnemer via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:18 PM To: Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject:

+1, tokens are the current True Way to create single-entry multi-exit regions. Your example for an annotated loop would look like: %region = call token @llvm.openmp.regionstart(metadata ...) ; whatever parameters you need here loop call void @llvm.openmp.regionend(token %region) If you use tokens, I would recommend proposal (c), where you introduce new intrinsics for every new kind of region,

Would you send us the LLVM IR for below example using token and OpBundle. So, we can understand better. Thanks. #pragma omp target teams distribute parallel for simd shared(xp, yp) linear(i) firstprivate(m, n) map(m, n) for (i=0; i<2*N; i++) { xp[i*m + j] = -1; yp[i*n +j] = -2; } #pragma prefetch x:1:20 y:0:10 for (i=0; i<2*N; i++) { xp[i*m + j] = -1; yp[i*n +j] = -2; } From: Hongbin

Mehdi, thanks for good questions. >>>>>Something isn’t clear to me about how do you preserve the validity of the region annotations since regular passes don’t know about the attached semantic? There are some small changes we have to make in some optimizations to make sure the optimizations does not validation attached annotation semantics. 1) provide hand-shaking / query utils for