search for: llvm_i64_ti

Hello, I have a problem with pattern matching on intrinsics. I have following code in IntrinsicsX86.td: ``` let TargetPrefix = "x86" in { // All intrinsics start with "llvm.x86.". def int_x86_mpx_bndmk: Intrinsic<[llvm_x86bnd_ty], [llvm_ptr_ty, llvm_i64_ty], []>; } ``` And following instruction that is generated when @llvm.x86.mpx.bndmk is used in code:

Hi, For PR21780 solution, I plan to add a new functionality to restore memory operations that was once deleted, in this particular case it is the load operations that were deleted by InstCombine, please note that once the load was removed there is no way to restore it back and that prevents us from vectorizing the shuffle operation. There are probably more similar issues where this approach could

Hi Michael, >Interesting approach but how do you handle more complex offsets, e.g., when the pointer is part of an aggregate? Only one offset does not seem enough to handle generic cases. Yes, correct, this a little bit changed example is not working. #include <x86intrin.h> __m256d vsht_d4_fold(const double* ptr, unsigned long long i) { __m256d foo = (__m256d){ ptr[i], ptr[i+1],

FYI, The CRC64 intrinsics were renamed to CRC32 since there is no such thing. See below for details. Chad On May 26, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Chad Rosier wrote: > Author: mcrosier > Date: Thu May 26 18:13:19 2011 > New Revision: 132163 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=132163&view=rev > Log: > Renamed llvm.x86.sse42.crc32 intrinsics; crc64 doesn't exist.

I have a variadic intrinsic that is defined as something like this: def int_foobar : Intrinsic<[llvm_anyint_ty], [llvm_vararg_ty], [IntrNoMem, IntrSpeculatable]>; When I construct a call to the above intrinsic with IRBuilder::CreateIntrinsic, it mangles the intrinsic name with the return type (i64) and the actual argument

I am maintaining proprietary extensions to the RISCV backend for our custom application. I have defined intrinsics for many of the custom instructions. Against LLVM 7 this was working well. When I try to merge my changes into LLVM 10, I get: /home/dej/work/llvm_git/llvm-project/llvm/build/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVGenGlobalISel.inc:11582:60: error: ‘idaho_mt_begin’ is not a member of

I have a question about the SSE scalar convert intrinsics. cvtsd2si is defined thusly: def int_x86_sse2_cvtsd2si64 : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_cvtsd2si64">, Intrinsic<[llvm_i64_ty, llvm_v2f64_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; This matches the signature of the GCC intrinsic. The fact that the GCC intrinsic has a type mismatch on the input (vector rather than scalar) is

Hi Michael, >I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would be >valuable for me if the entire access to an aggregate could be restored. Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new intrinsic and in my particular case I should ignore it, but I am looking now at "speculation_marker" metadata and I am still not sure how to implement it

On 09/13/2017 04:46 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Michael, >> I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would be >> valuable for me if the entire access to an aggregate could be restored. > Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new > intrinsic and in my particular case I should ignore it, but I am > looking

On Jun 5, 2009, at 8:51 AM, David Greene wrote: > I have a question about the SSE scalar convert intrinsics. > > cvtsd2si is defined thusly: > > def int_x86_sse2_cvtsd2si64 : > GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_cvtsd2si64">, > Intrinsic<[llvm_i64_ty, llvm_v2f64_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; > > This matches the signature of the GCC intrinsic. The

Hi Hal, >Are you primarily concerned with being able to widen loads later in the pipeline? Could we attached metadata to the remaining loads indicating that it would be legal to widen them? no, I don't have any concerns about intrinsic way of implementation, and intrinsic way looks safer for me since we somehow detach our information about memory from that actual load instruction. I updated

On 09/26/2017 08:31 AM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote: > Hi Hal, >> Are you primarily concerned with being able to widen loads later in the pipeline? Could we attached metadata to the remaining loads indicating that it would be legal to widen them? > no, I don't have any concerns about intrinsic way of implementation, > and intrinsic way looks safer for me since we somehow detach our

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Dan Gohman wrote: > LLVM knows what all the types of the intrinsic functions are; I thought, > why are users (including llvm-gcc...) required to duplicate all this > information in order to use them? I mean in order to call > getOrInsertFunction to get declarations for them. That is an excellent question! :) In the bad old days, we used to allow intrinsics

On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 12:28:56PM -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Dan Gohman wrote: > > > LLVM knows what all the types of the intrinsic functions are; I thought, > > why are users (including llvm-gcc...) required to duplicate all this > > information in order to use them? I mean in order to call > > getOrInsertFunction to get declarations for

LLVM knows what all the types of the intrinsic functions are; I thought, why are users (including llvm-gcc...) required to duplicate all this information in order to use them? I mean in order to call getOrInsertFunction to get declarations for them. So I wrote this patch, which allows all this code to be generated automatically. Is this a good approach? Dan -- Dan Gohman, Cray Inc. <djg at

This is for BPF output. BPF program output bytes to perf through a tracepoint. For decoding such data, we need a way to describe the format of the buffer. This patch is a try which gives each variable a unique number by introducing a new intrinsic 'llvm.typeid.for'. At the bottom is an example of using that intrinsic and the result of $ clang -target bpf -O2 -c -S ./test_typeid.c

On 2015/8/12 12:57, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:34:43AM +0800, Wangnan (F) via llvm-dev wrote: >> Think about a program like this: >> >> struct strA { int a; } >> struct strB { int b; } >> int func() { >> struct strA a; >> struct strB b; >> >> a.a = 1; >> b.b = 2; >>