search for: targetlow

Here is a series of patches replacing EVT with MVT at a number of places in TargetLowering. The last two patches are related cleanups in SelectionDAGBuilder. /Patrik Hägglund > git log --stat --reverse origin/master.. commit 8dabe3eb005360347eabb86a2e88c3b6e9098ed5 Author: Patrik Hägglund <patrik.h.hagglund at ericsson.com> Date: Tue Dec 4 10:37:37 2012 +0100 Chan...

All, The attached patch adds two extra arguments to TargetLowering::LowerCall: RetTy and Args. These arguments are used in TargetLowering::LowerCallTo() to construct the Ins and OutVals parameters, but are not available to the target via LowerCall(). Some targets require this additional information, and the LowerCallTo() method is not virtual in TargetLower...

Hi, I'd like to add support for addrspacecast in initializers of global variables, at least for the trivial case. The trivial case is if TargetLowering::isNoopAddrSpaceCast(SrcAS, DestAS) returns true. In this case the MCExpr for the addrspacecast is the MCExpr of its first operand. It seems hard to obtain an instance of TargetLowering in AsmPrinter::lowerConstant(). Other methods in this class obtain it by calling `MF->getSubtarget...

Hi, I see that for different targets in classes which inherits from TargetLowering there are implemented both methods: LowerOperation and ReplaceNodeResults What decides that for one given ISD we have to add handling in LowerOperation and for other in ReplaceNodeResults, when for both SetOperationAction is configured to be Custom? Is it related with number of results o...

TargetLowering::LowerCall is already a mess, I would really prefer not to extend it any further. It's especially difficult to justify extending it without a use in the open source tree. We really should think hard about how to improve the API in two ways. Perhaps we should wrap the arguments in some str...

Hi all, I think there is a typo in TargetLowering.cpp where Names[RTLIB::SYNC_FETCH_AND_XOR_4] = "__sync_fetch_and-xor_4"; is given, and it looks like it should be "__sync_fetch_and_xor_4"; This was added here: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/TargetLowering.cpp?view=diff&r1=106...

From: Evan Cheng [mailto:evan.cheng at apple.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 10:47 AM To: Justin Holewinski Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; Vinod Grover Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [PATCH][RFC] Add extra arguments to TargetLowering::LowerCall() so targets have more context in which to construct call chains TargetLowering::LowerCall is already a mess, I would really prefer not to extend it any further. It's especially difficult to justify extending it without a use in the open source tree. We really should think har...

...m::Instruction*, llvm::CallSite, llvm::DenseMap<llvm::Value*, llvm::Value*, llvm::DenseMapInfo<llvm::Value*>, llvm::DenseMapInfo<llvm::Value*> >&)’: /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/CodeGenPrepare.cpp: 966: error: no matching function for call to ‘llvm::TargetLowering::ComputeConstraintToUse (llvm::TargetLowering::AsmOperandInfo&, llvm::SDValue) const’ /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h:1177: note: candidates are: virtual void llvm::TargetLowering::ComputeConstraintToUse (llvm::TargetLowering::AsmOperandInfo&, llv...

...n Holewinski wrote: > > From: Evan Cheng [mailto:evan.cheng at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 10:47 AM > To: Justin Holewinski > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; Vinod Grover > Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [PATCH][RFC] Add extra arguments to TargetLowering::LowerCall() so targets have more context in which to construct call chains > > TargetLowering::LowerCall is already a mess, I would really prefer not to extend it any further. It's especially difficult to justify extending it without a use in the open source tree. > > We r...

> -----Original Message----- > From: Evan Cheng [mailto:evan.cheng at apple.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:30 PM > To: Justin Holewinski > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [PATCH][RFC] Add extra arguments to > TargetLowering::LowerCall() so targets have more context in which to > construct call chains > > Thanks. This is going in the right direction IMHO. Obviously, please make sure > you add comments to the data structure and convert all the targets first. > Also, please don't forget to send a...

...ed patch as an initial prototype for the LowerCall/LowerCallTo change. All of the information currently needed by the back-ends, and the extra information needed by the NVPTX back-end, is now wrapped in a CallLoweringInfo struct. The various SelectionDAG classes have been modified so any calls to TargetLowering::LowerCallTo use this struct, and this struct is the means for passing information to/from each target's LowerCall method. Right now, the interface is a bit rough around the edges, but I wanted to get feedback from the community on what you want in this interface before spending too much...

...m0 mulss 16(%esp), %xmm0 movss %xmm0, (%esp) call L_qux$stub subl $4, %esp << stack adjustment because qux pops arguments on return mulss LCPI1_0, %xmm0 addl $12, %esp ret $4 > Index: include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h > =================================================================== > --- include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h (revision 42247) > +++ include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h (working copy) > @@ -851,8 +851,18 @@ > virtual std::pair<SDOperand, SDOperand> > Lower...

Hi, On 01/22/2016 05:02 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:58:49PM +0100, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm a litle bit puzzled by the TargetLowering::LowerOperation function, >> and what different callers of this function assumes about the returned >> value. >> > SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp() is your best reference for this. > >> In several places it seems like it is assumed that LowerOperation can >&g...

Hi, I'm a litle bit puzzled by the TargetLowering::LowerOperation function, and what different callers of this function assumes about the returned value. In several places it seems like it is assumed that LowerOperation can return three kinds of values: * Something completely new. * SDValue() * The same SDValue as LowerOperation was calle...

Hi Nadav, I believe the implementation to keep on widening the vector to the next power of two must be in TargetLowering.h because that is where we decide whether to Widen the vector or not, and the size to which we widen it. In this case, we stop at 4xi8 and do not check if it is legal or not. But the comment says ‘try to widen vector elements until a legal type is found’. Also, there is a minor issue with th...

Hi all, I'm looking for a place where to put the costs of vector (and scalar) cast operations for ARM, but I noticed the TargetTransform methods call the TargetLowering ones when unsure. Now, I'm not sure... Many casts on ARM are free, and I could build a list of cases where it is true, but should I put this on the lowering or the transform? My main motivation is to get the costs right for the vectorization pass, but I think this should be generally ava...

This patch is needed to have TargetLowering::getPICJumpTableRelocBase return a GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE node when a jump table entry is encoded as a GPRel64BlockAddress. This should have been included in r149668, but somehow I missed it: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.cvs/107188 -------------- next part -------------- A...

A change has just been committed that changes the interface for TargetLowering::LowerCallTo and TargetLowering::LowerCall. Instead of passing a mess of parameters to these functions, a new structure has been created that encapsulates these parameters. The motivation is that additional fields can be added to this structure (with appropriate changes to SelectionDAGBuilde...

...d it to the cost table. Thanks, Nadav On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking for a place where to put the costs of vector (and scalar) cast operations for ARM, but I noticed the TargetTransform methods call the TargetLowering ones when unsure. > > Now, I'm not sure... > > Many casts on ARM are free, and I could build a list of cases where it is true, but should I put this on the lowering or the transform? My main motivation is to get the costs right for the vectorization pass, but I think this sho...

...;> >> From: Evan Cheng [mailto:evan.cheng at apple.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 10:47 AM >> To: Justin Holewinski >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; Vinod Grover >> Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [PATCH][RFC] Add extra arguments to TargetLowering::LowerCall() so targets have more context in which to construct call chains >> >> TargetLowering::LowerCall is already a mess, I would really prefer not to extend it any further. It's especially difficult to justify extending it without a use in the open source tree. >>...