Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "my_intrinsic".
2016 Jun 24
3
creating Intrinsic DAG Node
...can't seem to
find what cast is causing the issue here.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's what I thought but I got the same error with:
>
> DAG.getNode(ISD::INTRINSIC_WO_CHAIN, DL, VT,
> DAG.getTargetConstant(Intrinsic::my_intrinsic, DL, MVT::i16), LHS);
>
> Thanks.
>
> What should this call look like?
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:53 AM, <escha at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> The intrinsic ID is an int, not a float.
>>
>> —escha
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2016, at 7:49 AM, Ryan T...
2016 Jun 24
2
creating Intrinsic DAG Node
...is:
>
> SDValue XXXLowering::LowerFSQRT(SDValue Op, SelectionDAG &DAG) const {
> SDLoc DL(Op);
> EVT VT = Op.getValueType();
> SDValue LHS = Op.getOperand(0);
>
> SDValue newNode = DAG.getNode(ISD::INTRINSIC_WO_CHAIN, DL, VT, DAG.getTargetConstantFP(Intrinsic::my_intrinsic, DL, VT), LHS);
> return newNode;
> }
>
> The error I'm getting is: Assertion 'isa<X>(Val) && "cast<Ty>() argument of incompatible type!"
>
> Is this the correct way to add intrinsic dag node?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On Tue, F...
2016 Feb 02
3
creating Intrinsic DAG Node
Matt,
This seems to generate llvm.my_intrinsic just fine in the DAG, so no DAG
errors; however, it won't match. For example, if I call the intrinsic from
C, the DAG node looks to be named the same in dotty file but it won't
match... am I missing something?
I've done it exactly the way it was done above. The DAG looks great but
it...
2016 Feb 02
2
creating Intrinsic DAG Node
...ra operand, which is a 'ch'
from a load.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 2016, at 12:43, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Matt,
> >
> > This seems to generate llvm.my_intrinsic just fine in the DAG, so no
> DAG errors; however, it won't match. For example, if I call the intrinsic
> from C, the DAG node looks to be named the same in dotty file but it won't
> match... am I missing something?
> >
> > I've done it exactly the way it was done...
2013 Feb 20
1
[LLVMdev] Is it possible to define a LLVM intrinsic that expands in more than one instructions ?
Hi all,
Is it possible to define a LLVM intrinsic that expands in more than one instructions ?
If yes, how ?
Best Regards
Seb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130220/e5863d46/attachment.html>
2016 Jun 13
2
LLVM IR intrinsics placeholder for strings [was Re: Back end with special loop instructions (using LLVM IR intrinsics)]
...ouched until the end, including code
generation time.)
More exactly, I would like to give something LIKE this in a middle-tier pass (I
haven't tried this code in LLVM):
Value *instrinsicFunc = Intrinsic::getDeclaration(M,
Intrinsic::my_intrinsic);
myIRBuilder.CreateCall(repeatFunc,
"string_that_llc_codegen_should_output_as_assembly");
So my intrinsic would be accepting a general string which will be used at codegen to
be output. I guess I would have to define it like this in a .td file:
def int_my_intrin...
2008 Apr 15
0
[LLVMdev] Branch-like intrinsic
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Edward Lee wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:
>> You can change the code generator or not run the block layout pass.
> Ok thanks for the help. I'll try finding where to twiddle this.
> Perhaps explicitly check if the branch's condition is the call to my
> intrinsic.
>
> Or is there another
2016 Feb 02
2
creating Intrinsic DAG Node
Matt,
Is this an example you are talking about:
LoadedVect = DAG.getNode
<http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1SelectionDAG.html#ab02868bea897db34232413f1929ade1d>
(ISD::INTRINSIC_WO_CHAIN
<http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/namespacellvm_1_1ISD.html#a22ea9cec080dd5f4f47ba234c2f59110ac771b9cda3b889242d457cc4d9b2159c>,
dl, MVT::v4f64,
DAG.getConstant
2008 Apr 14
2
[LLVMdev] Branch-like intrinsic
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Then that flow would be explicit in the CFG, right? Then %F wouldn't
> be dead, I'm assuming.
Right. That's why I used a conditional branch after the intrinsic, but
it sounds like the CFG simplification pass after lowering will
optimize it away and no longer have the flow explicit. (To the
2016 May 30
1
Back end with special loop instructions
Hi Alex,
You might find it useful to look at how lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCCTRLoops.cpp works.
-Hal
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Susu via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 5:09:37 PM
> Subject: [llvm-dev] Back end with special loop instructions
>
> Hello.