search for: predrel

...ef Format_predt : IFormat<3>; def Format_predf : IFormat<4>; Addrr : { Addrr, Addri, Addrr_pt, Addrr_pf, .. , ..} Addri : { Addrr, Addri, Addri_pt, Addri_pf,.. > Do something like this: > > def getPredicatedOpcode : InstrMapping { > // Only include instructions form the PredRel class. > let FilterClass = "PredRel"; > > // Instructions with the same BaseOpcode field form a row. > let RowFields = ["BaseOpcode"]; > > // Instructions with the same predicate sense form a column. > let ColFields = ["PredSense"]; &gt...

...per relationship which finally translates into > a unique column into the mapping table. My point is that you don't need to define additional structure when you can just use the record fields. >> def getPredicatedOpcode : InstrMapping { >> // Only include instructions form the PredRel class. >> let FilterClass = "PredRel"; >> >> // Instructions with the same BaseOpcode field form a row. >> let RowFields = ["BaseOpcode"]; >> >> // Instructions with the same predicate sense form a column. >> let ColFields = [&quo...

...e false We can define the relationship between the non-predicated instructions and their predicate formats as follows: def getPredOpcode : InstrMapping { // InstrMapping is a new class defined in Target.td // Used to filter instructions that have this kind of relationship let FilterClass = "PredRel"; // Instructions with the same BaseOpcode value form a row. let RowFields = ["BaseOpcode"]; // Instructions with the same predicate sense form a column. let ColFields = ["PredSense"]; // The key column is the unpredicated instructions. let KeyCol = ["nopred"];...

...ns, or add new ones as needed. You don't want to be limited to a single 'IFormat' as a column identifier, there can be many different types of relationships between instructions. Do something like this: def getPredicatedOpcode : InstrMapping { // Only include instructions form the PredRel class. let FilterClass = "PredRel"; // Instructions with the same BaseOpcode field form a row. let RowFields = ["BaseOpcode"]; // Instructions with the same predicate sense form a column. let ColFields = ["PredSense"]; // The key column is the unpredicat...

...> translates into a unique column into the mapping table. > > My point is that you don't need to define additional structure when you can > just use the record fields. > > >> def getPredicatedOpcode : InstrMapping { // Only include > >> instructions form the PredRel class. > >> let FilterClass = "PredRel"; > >> > >> // Instructions with the same BaseOpcode field form a row. > >> let RowFields = ["BaseOpcode"]; > >> > >> // Instructions with the same predicate sense form a column. &gt...

Jyotsna, I hadn't been following this, so I apologize if this has already been provided, but can you give a quick example of how this functionality is used? Thanks in advance, Hal On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:01:17 -0500 "Jyotsna Verma" <jverma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Jakob, > > Here is the first draft of the patch to add TableGen backend support > for the

Hi Everyone, After some more thoughts to the Jacob's suggestion of using multiclasses for Opcode mapping, this is what I have come up with. Please take a look at the design below and let me know if you have any suggestions/questions. I have tried to keep the design target independent so that other targets could benefit from it. 1) The idea is to add 3 new classes into

Hi Jakob, Here is the first draft of the patch to add TableGen backend support for the instruction mapping tables. Please take a look and let me know your suggestions. As of now, I create one mapping table per relation which results into a long .inc file. So, I'm planning to combine everything into a single table and will include APIs (one per relation) to query from this table. Thanks,