search for: loadsdnode

...ed by a little bit of code in the DAGCombiner where it merges loads in MergeConsecutiveStores. Two 16bit loads have been merged to one 32bit load, and two 16bit stores have been combined to one 32bit store. And then the code goes like this: // Replace one of the loads with the new load. LoadSDNode *Ld = cast<LoadSDNode>(LoadNodes[0].MemNode); DAG.ReplaceAllUsesOfValueWith(SDValue(Ld, 1), SDValue(NewLoad.getNode(), 1)); // Remove the rest of the load chains. for (unsigned i = 1; i < NumElem ; ++i) { // Replace all chain users of the old...

...been used is done by testing if TM.Options.EnableFastISel is set. For example in SelectionDAGISel::LowerArguments SDB->setValue(&Arg, Res); if (!TM.Options.EnableFastISel && Res.getOpcode() == ISD::BUILD_PAIR) { if (LoadSDNode *LNode = dyn_cast<LoadSDNode>(Res.getOperand(0).getNode())) if (FrameIndexSDNode *FI = dyn_cast<FrameIndexSDNode>(LNode->getBasePtr().getNode())) FuncInfo->setArgumentFrameIndex(&Arg, FI->getIndex()); } Is it in BUG or am I missin...

...I believe a for-loop can make it much more readable. (defining memory space patterns in PTXInstrInfo.td for each memory space) ---------------------------------------- def load_global : PatFrag<(ops node:$ptr), (load node:$ptr), [{  const Value *Src;  const PointerType *PT;  if ((Src = cast<LoadSDNode>(N)->getSrcValue()) &&      (PT = dyn_cast<PointerType>(Src->getType())))    return PT->getAddressSpace() == PTX::GLOBAL;  return false; }]>; def load_constant : PatFrag<(ops node:$ptr), (load node:$ptr), [{  const Value *Src;  const PointerType *PT;  if ((Src = cast...

...sk out the upper bits. These are the modifications that I have made to accomplish that: 1. Register the ZEXTLOAD for custom lowering: setLoadExtAction(ISD::ZEXTLOAD, MVT::i16, Custom); 2. Implement a custom lowering function: static SDValue LowerExtLoad(SDValue Op, SelectionDAG &DAG) { LoadSDNode *LD = dyn_cast<LoadSDNode>(Op.getNode()); ISD::LoadExtType ExtType = LD->getExtensionType(); if (LD->getExtensionType() == ISD::ZEXTLOAD) { DEBUG(errs() << "ZEXTLOAD\n"); SDValue Chain = LD->getChain(); SDValue Ptr = LD->getBasePtr(); DebugLoc...

...9;s *volatile* that let you get a new result, you might want to try change some other parameters and check what it turns out. Regards. 2012/12/2 Joseph Pusdesris <joe at pusdesris.com> > > So I think I have made some progress. > SDValue dupVal = consumer->getOperand(OpNo); > LoadSDNode *dupNode = (LoadSDNode*) dupVal.getNode(); > > SDValue newLoad = CurDAG->getLoad(dupVal.getValueType(), dupVal.getDebugLoc(), > dupVal.getOperand(0), dupVal.getOperand(1), > dupNode->getPointerInfo(), >...

...QUIRE or XRELEASE hints This extra target flag is embedded into the SubclassData fields. The following is rationale how such target flags are embedded into SubclassData in SDNode here is the current SDNode class hierarchy of memory related nodes SDNode -> MemSDNode -> LSBaseNode -> LoadSDNode | + -> StoreSDNode + -> AtomicSDNode + -> MemIntrinsicSDNode here is the current SubclassData definitions: bit 0~1 : extension type used in LoadSDNode bit 0 : truncating store in StoreSDNode bit 2~4 : addre...

...est is for equality or unsigned, and all 1 bits of the const are // in the same partial word, see if we can shorten the load. if (DCI.isBeforeLegalize() && N0.getOpcode() == ISD::AND && C1 == 0 && N0.getNode()->hasOneUse() && isa<LoadSDNode>(N0.getOperand(0)) && N0.getOperand(0).getNode()->hasOneUse() && isa<ConstantSDNode>(N0.getOperand(1))) { LoadSDNode *Lod = cast<LoadSDNode>(N0.getOperand(0)); APInt bestMask; [...] This shouldn't ever do the wrong thing because of...

So I think I have made some progress. SDValue dupVal = consumer->getOperand(OpNo); LoadSDNode *dupNode = (LoadSDNode*) dupVal.getNode(); SDValue newLoad = CurDAG->getLoad(dupVal.getValueType(), dupVal.getDebugLoc(), dupVal.getOperand(0), dupVal.getOperand(1), dupNode->getPointerInfo(), dupNod...

...t; So what if we replace Volatile/NonTemporal with a single bitvector? > There's not a lot of room in SubclassData (it also holds alignment > information) so maybe this should be another member on MemSDNode. > That will increase the size of MemSDNode, so we need to consider > that. LoadSDNode, which inherits from MemSDNode is the largest SDNode. With the current SDNode allocation strategy, making it bigger will increase the allocation needed for all nodes. > > The constructor could look something like this: > > MemSDNode(unsigned Opc, DebugLoc dl, SDVTList VTs, MVT MemoryV...

Hi, I am writing an llvm target and I need both loads for isel reasons, but I am struggling to find the right way. I have been trying to use DAG.getLoad() to make a copy, then just change the operand in the consumers, but I cannot seem to get all of the arguments needed for that function in order to make the copy. Any help would be great, thanks! -Joe -------------- next part -------------- An

Hi, During instruction selection, I have the following code for certain LOAD instructions: const LoadSDNode *LD = cast<LoadSDNode>(N); SDNode* LDW = CurDAG->getMachineNode(AVR::LDWRdPtr, SDLoc(N), VT, PtrVT, MVT::Other, LD->getBasePtr(), LD->getChain()); // Honestly, I have no idea what this does, but other memory // accessing instructions have something s...

...ease the size of MemSDNode, so we need to consider that. The constructor could look something like this: MemSDNode(unsigned Opc, DebugLoc dl, SDVTList VTs, MVT MemoryVT, const Value *srcValue, int SVOff, unsigned alignment, unsigned flags); and called like this: new (N) LoadSDNode(..., isVolatile|isNonTemporal); Thoughts? -Dave

...t, you might > want to try change some other parameters and check what it turns out. > > Regards. > > 2012/12/2 Joseph Pusdesris <joe at pusdesris.com> > > > > So I think I have made some progress. > > SDValue dupVal = consumer->getOperand(OpNo); > > LoadSDNode *dupNode = (LoadSDNode*) dupVal.getNode(); > > > > SDValue newLoad = CurDAG->getLoad(dupVal.getValueType(), > dupVal.getDebugLoc(), > > dupVal.getOperand(0), > dupVal.getOperand(1), > > dupNode->getPoi...

...ange some other parameters and check what it turns out. >> >> Regards. >> >> 2012/12/2 Joseph Pusdesris <joe at pusdesris.com> >> > >> > So I think I have made some progress. >> > SDValue dupVal = consumer->getOperand(OpNo); >> > LoadSDNode *dupNode = (LoadSDNode*) dupVal.getNode(); >> > >> > SDValue newLoad = CurDAG->getLoad(dupVal.getValueType(), >> > dupVal.getDebugLoc(), >> > dupVal.getOperand(0), >> > dupVal.getOperand(1), >> >...

Hi Eli, On 07/27/2011 04:59 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Matt Johnson > <johnso87 at crhc.illinois.edu> wrote: >> Hi All, >> I'm writing a backend for a target which only supports 4-byte, >> 4-byte-aligned loads and stores. I custom-lower all {*EXT}LOAD and >> STORE nodes in TargetISelLowering.cpp to take advantage of

...ffset and check its alignment as a predicate in the tblgen files? If so, this would likely take care of the normal case if the POD is on the stack and writing patterns is a lot easier than custom selecting or lowering. Q2: Is there any way to determine a POD's offset based on a LoadSDNode and StoreSDNode's data? Currently, LoadSDNode::getBasePtr (and StoreSDNode::getBasePtr) can return something back, but how do I access the operand's offset (and hence, alignment) relative to a base register? Q3: There are three variants of load (and store) for the SPU. Two...

...should we avoid them? > > Is there any reason we would not want to support metadata on SDNodes, > other than the cost of implementing it? We don't necessarily need to do that > now. I'm just asking the question with future possibilities in mind. I think that adding a bit to LoadSDNode and StoreSDNode would make sense. -Chris

On Saturday 01 August 2009 15:12, Dan Gohman wrote: > LoadSDNode, which inherits from MemSDNode is the largest > SDNode. With the current SDNode allocation strategy, making it > bigger will increase the allocation needed for all nodes. Ok. > > new (N) LoadSDNode(..., isVolatile|isNonTemporal); > > > > Thoughts? > > This sounds r...

On Feb 10, 2010, at 12:42 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:58:25 Chris Lattner wrote: > >> I think that adding a bit to LoadSDNode and StoreSDNode would make sense. > > Ok. The consequence is that a number of functions will have to change to > propagate this bit, analogous to what happens with isVolatile. It's > essentially what we do right now here. If everyone's ok with that, I'll go > that r...

...; >> >> Regards. >> >> >> >> 2012/12/2 Joseph Pusdesris <joe at pusdesris.com> >> >> > >> >> > So I think I have made some progress. >> >> > SDValue dupVal = consumer->getOperand(OpNo); >> >> > LoadSDNode *dupNode = (LoadSDNode*) dupVal.getNode(); >> >> > >> >> > SDValue newLoad = CurDAG->getLoad(dupVal.getValueType(), >> >> > dupVal.getDebugLoc(), >> >> > dupVal.getOperand(0), >> >> > dupVal...