search for: opcodestring

Is it legal to do something like a !strconcat on a non-string entity? That is, is there some operation that will let me do this (replace SOME_CONCAT with an appropriate operator): (WARNING! Hacked-up tablegen ahead!) multiclass sse_fp_binop_bitwise_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr, SDNode OpNode> { // Vector operation emulating scalar (fp)

Dear there, I'm developing an instruction layout like: opcode | rd| ts and its semantics is: rd= rd opcode rs But when I describe it in td file like this: class R<bits<5> Op, string OpcodeStr, list<dag> Pattern> : InstV<(outs GPR:$rd), (ins GPR:$rd, GPR:$rs), !strconcat(OpcodeStr, "\t$rd, $rs"), Pattern> { bits<5> rd; bits<6> rs; let

Hi Hal, Thanks for your reply and it is helpful! I have a quick question: When I use BuildMI to build instructions in this case, do I have to add all three of the register operands explicitly (operand 0 and 1 are the same)? Thanks, Xiaochu On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Xiaochu Liu via

On Mar 23, 2009, at 5:56 PM, David Greene wrote: > Is it legal to do something like a !strconcat on a non-string > entity? That > is, is there some operation that will let me do this (replace > SOME_CONCAT with > an appropriate operator): I don't get it, can you try a simpler example on me? :) -Chris > > > (WARNING! Hacked-up tablegen ahead!) > >

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Bill, > Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that > define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to > reduce redundant code. > For example: > multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node> > { > def _i8 : Pat<(sub

On Tuesday 24 March 2009 10:43, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mar 23, 2009, at 5:56 PM, David Greene wrote: > > Is it legal to do something like a !strconcat on a non-string > > entity? That > > is, is there some operation that will let me do this (replace > > SOME_CONCAT with > > an appropriate operator): > > I don't get it, can you try a simpler example on

Hi, I have a simple question w.r.t the order of operands used in dag pattern matching in target files. Some of them seem intuitive. But I want to get it clarified anyway. I am using a pattern from X86InstrFMA.td in the below example. Consider FMA3 pattern (simplified). let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in { multiclass fma3s_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr, X86MemOperand

Bill, Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to reduce redundant code. For example: multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node> { def _i8 : Pat<(sub GPRI8:$src0, GPRI8:$src1), (ADD_i8 GPRI8:$src0, (NEGATE_i8 GPRI8:$src1))>; def _i32 : Pat<(sub

Hi, A question from r162999 changes: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrFMA.td?r1=162999&r2=162998&pathrev=162999 For the multiclass "fma4s", why is "mr" not inherited from "VEX_W" and "MemOp4" like those of "rm" or "rr" ? multiclass fma4s< > ... def mr : FMA4<opc, MRMSrcMem, (outs

Hello all, I have two Tablegen questions in the context of an unconventional architecture. The pertinent details: the architecture has multiple register files that are selected via a bit in the instruction. One of the register files is a traditional one. The other is unconventional in that all source and dest registers are both read from and written to by the instructions. So add special0,

Chris Lattner wrote: > However, I don't see any reason to base this off of strings. Instead > of passing down "f32" as a string, why not do something like this > pseudo code: > > class X86ValueType { > RegisterClass RegClass; > ... > } > > def X86_f32 : X86ValueType { > let RegClass = FR32; > ... }; > def X86_i32 :

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Anitha Boyapati <anitha.boyapati at gmail.com>wrote: ... > For the multiclass "fma4s", why is "mr" not inherited from "VEX_W" and > "MemOp4" like those of "rm" or "rr" ? > Hey Anitha, The VEX.W bit is used to denote operand order. In other words, this bit allows for a memop to be used as

On Thursday 11 June 2009 12:28, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:39 PM, David Greene wrote: > > On Tuesday 09 June 2009 14:34, Dan Gohman wrote: > >> Can you describe what problem you're trying to solve here? Does it > >> really need Regular Expressions? > > > > Yes. I want TableGen to be able to infer lots of stuff > >

Hello. I have extended the BPF back end with vector registers (inspiring from Mips MSA) - something like this: def MSA128D: RegisterClass<"Connex", [v128i16], 32, (sequence "Wh%u", 0, 31)>; I also added vector store and load instructions in the style of Mips MSA - see

On Jun 11, 2009, at 2:01 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 11 June 2009 12:28, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> >>> Yes. I want TableGen to be able to infer lots of stuff >>> programmatically. >>> This helps tremendously when specifying things like, oh, AVX. :) >> >> I don't see how this relates to regex's, and really don't want to

On 16 November 2012 13:41, Anitha B Gollamudi <anitha.boyapati at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a simple question w.r.t the order of operands used in dag > pattern matching in target files. Some of them seem intuitive. But I > want to get it clarified anyway. I am using a pattern from > X86InstrFMA.td in the below example. Consider FMA3 pattern > (simplified). >

On 8 November 2012 11:12, Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Anitha Boyapati <anitha.boyapati at gmail.com> > wrote: > ... >> >> For the multiclass "fma4s", why is "mr" not inherited from "VEX_W" and >> "MemOp4" like those of "rm" or "rr" ? >

On Jun 15, 2009, at 11:33 AM, David Greene wrote: > To reduce redundancy, developers must be able to write generic > patterns > like this: > > [(set DSTREGCLASS:$dst, // rr, rrr > (xor (INTSRCTYPE (bitconvert (SRCTYPE SRCREGCLASS:$src1))), > (INTSRCTYPE (bitconvert (SRCTYPE SRCREGCLASS:$src2)))))], > > The substitution then fills in the appropriate types,

Hello, Ive started writing a backend to a simple 32bit RISC processor core with the goal of undertaking some flexible instruction processor core research on FPGAs and also to use it for teaching computer architecture. I have a requirement to generate instructions like below, where the (17bit) immediate value is (preferably) omitted if it has a zero value. add %15, %14 add %12, %23 - 18 mov

Here's the big RFC. A I've gone through and designed patterns for AVX, I quickly realized that the existing SSE pattern specification, while functional, is less than ideal in terms of maintenance. In particular, a number of nearly-identical patterns are specified all over for nearly-identical instructions. For example: let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in { multiclass