search for: replacenode

Thanks Ahmed and also Alex for your replies. This is more or less what I was realising, but it is a great confidence booster to know that it is the correct way also. I can replace all of my various 'Select*' specialisations with version that use 'ReplaceNode/SelectCode' and return 'void', but what about the places where I currently call 'Select(N)' directly? Should I substitute 'SelectCode(N)' instead? I will examine the X86 implementation as you recommend and hope to glean some knowledge from that. All the best, Martin...

...; writes: > Thanks Ahmed and also Alex for your replies. > > This is more or less what I was realising, but it is a great > confidence booster to know that it is the correct way also. I can > replace all of my various 'Select*' specialisations with version that > use 'ReplaceNode/SelectCode' and return 'void', but what about the > places where I currently call 'Select(N)' directly? Should I > substitute 'SelectCode(N)' instead? Maybe, but be aware that `N` won't necessarily be a valid reference anymore after calling SelectCode - it ma...

It occurred to me that instead of the various breakout 'Select*' functions returning the 'SDNode*' result, maybe I should be calling: ReplaceNode(N, newValue); return; or: SelectCode(N); return; Perhaps? MartinO From: Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:martin.oriordan at movidius.com] Sent: 28 June 2016 16:49 To: 'LLVM Developers' <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Question about changes to ...

In LegalizeDAG.cpp, truncating stores are custom-lowered in line 1314-1317: 1314 case TargetLowering::Custom: 1315 ReplaceNode(SDValue(Node, 0), 1316 TLI.LowerOperation(SDValue(Node, 0), DAG)); 1317 break; Is there a reason it doesn't check whether the SDValue returned from TargetLowering::LowerOperation is null before it replaces the original node with the returned node? The return va...

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It occurred to me that instead of the various breakout ‘Select*’ functions > returning the ‘SDNode*’ result, maybe I should be calling: > > > > ReplaceNode(N, newValue); > > return; > > or: > > SelectCode(N); > > return; > > > > Perhaps? Yes, I think the core difference is that Select() - not its caller - now does the replacement, so there's nothing to return. This is actually mentioned in the release no...

Hi Akira, On 01/06/12 02:27, Hatanaka, Akira wrote: > In LegalizeDAG.cpp, truncating stores are custom-lowered in line 1314-1317: > > 1314 case TargetLowering::Custom: > 1315 ReplaceNode(SDValue(Node, 0), > 1316 TLI.LowerOperation(SDValue(Node, 0), DAG)); > 1317 break; > > Is there a reason it doesn't check whether the SDValue returned from > TargetLowering::LowerOperation is null before it replaces the original node with > the...

Thanks, that sounds like it would work. Was this based on what any other target did? Or do any other targets take this approach? I just want to make sure that we don't already have a hook suitable for this. Overriding runOnFunction to run what could be described as just a "late SelectionDAG pass" sounds pretty intrusive. Do you remember other approaches that didn't work? --

...from R0. This allows the coalescer // to propagate these into other instructions. if (ConstNode->isNullValue()) { SDValue New = CurDAG->getCopyFromReg(CurDAG->getEntryNode(), SDLoc(Node), Lanai::R0, MVT::i32); return ReplaceNode(Node, New.getNode()); } // Materialize all ones constants as copies from R1. This allows the // coalescer to propagate these into other instructions. if (ConstNode->isAllOnesValue()) { SDValue New = CurDAG->getCopyFromReg(CurDAG->getEntryNode(),...

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:36, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/23/2017 5:21 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote: >> Hi Eli, >> >> I would like to clarify generally what the difference is between returning SDValue() and Op (input argument unchanged) from LowerOperation()? >> >> My understanding is that returning SDValue()

The reason the ones in PPCInstrInfo.td don't have the patterns to match is the reason they are more analogous to your problem. Namely, tblgen does not have a way to produce nodes with more than one result. The load-with-update instructions do exactly that - one of the inputs is also an output, but the other output is independent (and necessarily a separate register). The FMA variants have

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Nemanja Ivanovic wrote: > This is typically accomplished with something like PPC's `RegConstraint` and > `NoEncode`. You can see examples of it that are very similar to what you're after in > PPC's load/store with update forms (i.e. load a value and update the base register > with the effective address - these are used for pre-increment loads/stores).

Hi........ M hving javascript "scripts.js" which uses jQuery.js in rails application. bt when it is used along with prototype.js, one of the javascripts which hs been included first in my application.rhtml fails... Do some1 hv any solution how to make both the scripts work 2gether... I tried using <script> jQuery.noConflict(); </script> bt of no use. problem

...dwrite: Added more dwrite interfaces. msvcrt: Move demangler flags to a header and use them. msxml3: Fail to insert a node of unsupported type to a document. wshom: Implement IWshShell3::Run(). msxml3: Better handle cross-tree node moves. msxml3: Update refcount in replaceNode(). msxml3: Update backing docs refcount in put_documentElement(). msxml3: Remove unneeded cast to xmlDocPtr. msxml3: Escape value for attribute in put_value(). msxml3: Don't make a variant copy if no need to for setting node value. msxml3: Avoid unneeded variant co...