Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1200 matches similar to: "tinc version 1.0pre7 hangs"
2019 Feb 08
2
Unfolded additions of constants after promotion of @llvm.ctlz.i16 on SystemZ
Hi,
SystemZ supports @llvm.ctlz.i64() natively with a single instruction
(FLOGR), and lesser bitwidth versions of the intrinsic are promoted to i64.
For some reason, this leads to unfolded additions of constants as shown
below:
This function:
define i16 @fun(i16 %arg) {
%1 = tail call i16 @llvm.ctlz.i16(i16 %arg, i1 false)
ret i16 %1
}
,gives this optimized DAG as input to instruction
2019 Jun 05
2
Strange behaviour of post-legalising optimisations(?)
I come across a situation that I am having a hard time to understand.
When I compile the following code :
char *tst( char *dest, const char *src, unsigned int len )
{
for (int i=0 ; i<len ; i++) {
dest[i] = src[i];
}
return dest;
}
Clang generates this for the ‘for’ body:
for.body: ; preds = %for.cond
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i8,
2018 Apr 09
2
A way to opt out of a dag combine?
Is there an established way of disabling a DAG combine on a per target
basis, where it appears to be detrimental to the generated code? Writing if
(!mytarget) in DAGCombiner.cpp works but tends to be erased by git merge
and generally doesn't look ideal. Writing the inverse transform in target
specific code doesn't work in this instance and in general creates an
infinite loop.
Guidance
2017 Sep 14
2
Question about 'DAGTypeLegalizer::SplitVecOp_EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT'
Hi All,
I have a question about splitting 'EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT' with 'v2i1'. I
have a llvm IR code snippet as following:
llvm IR code snippet:
for.body: ; preds = %entry,
%for.cond
%i.022 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %inc, %for.cond ]
%0 = icmp ne <2 x i32> %vecinit1, <i32 0, i32 -23>
%1 = extractelement <2 x i1>
2016 Sep 03
4
llc error
Hi all,
The attached LLVM assembly file fails to generate x86 code when compiled
using llc.
compilation command - ../llvm-build/bin/llc -filetype=asm -march=x86-64
-mcpu=core-avx2 ex4.ll
The error message is,
LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: t95: v8f32 = X86ISD::SUBV_BROADCAST t17
t17: v4f32,ch = load<LD16[%scevgep](tbaa=<0x4dbcd98>)> t0, t16, undef:i64
t16: i64 = add t2,
2016 Sep 03
2
llc error
I updated to the latest revision and now llvm does not build and quits
cmake with
CMake Error at cmake/modules/LLVMProcessSources.cmake:83 (message):
Found unknown source file
../llvm-revec/lib/CodeGen/MachineFunctionAnalysis.cpp
Please update
../llvm-revec/lib/CodeGen/CMakeLists.txt
Thanks
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
2017 Sep 15
2
Question about 'DAGTypeLegalizer::SplitVecOp_EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT'
> extends the elements to 8bit and stores them on stack.
Store is responsible for zero-extend. This is the policy...
- Elena
-----Original Message-----
From: jingu at codeplay.com [mailto:jingu at codeplay.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 17:45
To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>; daniel_l_sanders at apple.com
Subject: Re: Question
2018 Dec 18
2
In ISel, where Constant<0> comes from?
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 07:11, Gleb Popov via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> However, I haven't managed to get a "Constant<>" in the DAG when compiling for X86. I'm interested in how it is lowered. Can you please give me some guidance on this?
How are you looking? When I run "llc -mtriple=x86_64-linux-gnu
-debug-only=isel" on your IR I get
2016 Aug 02
2
Instruction selection problems due to SelectionDAGBuilder
Hello.
I'm having problems at instruction selection with my back end with the following
basic-block due to a vector add with immediate constant vector (obtained by vectorizing a
simple C program doing vector sum map):
vector.ph: ; preds = %vector.memcheck50
%.splatinsert = insertelement <8 x i64> undef, i64 %i.07.unr, i32 0
2017 Sep 17
2
Question about 'DAGTypeLegalizer::SplitVecOp_EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT'
Please open a bugzilla ticket and attach your testcase. It will allow us to debug and fix the problem.
Thanks
- Elena
From: JinGu [mailto:jingu at codeplay.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 00:38
To: Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>; daniel_l_sanders at apple.com <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com>; Jon Chesterfield <jonathanchesterfield at
2016 Jul 29
2
Help with ISEL matching for an SDAG
I have the following selection DAG:
SelectionDAG has 9 nodes:
t0: ch = EntryToken
t2: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg0
t16: i32,ch = load<LD1[%ptr](tbaa=<0x10023c9f448>), anyext from i8> t0,
t2, undef:i64
t15: v16i8 = BUILD_VECTOR t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16,
t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16
t11: ch,glue = CopyToReg t0, Register:v16i8 %V2, t15
2017 Sep 18
1
Question about 'DAGTypeLegalizer::SplitVecOp_EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT'
> so I think we need to use non-extending load for element size less than 8bit on "DAGTypeLegalizer::SplitVecOp_EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT" like this roughly.
> if (N->getOperand(0).getValueType().getVectorElementType().getSizeInBits() < 8) {
> return DAG.getLoad(N->getValueType(0), dl, Store, StackPtr, MachinePointerInfo());
> } else {
> return
2010 Jul 23
2
start and end times to yes/no in certain intervall
Hi List,
I have start and end times of events
structure(list(start = c("15:00", "15:00", "15:00", "11:00",
"14:00", "14:00", "15:00", "12:00", "12:00", "12:00", "12:00",
"12:00", "12:00", "12:00", "12:00", "12:00", "12:00",
2016 Jun 22
2
LLVM Backend Issues
Thanks Anton and Krzysztof!
Here is the dump using the -debug flag. At this point I am not making much
sense of this, would it be too much to ask if one of you could walk me
through one of these lines?
One thing that I didn't point out is that I never defined any separate
floating point registers, not sure if this will pose any issue?
Thanks again for your time!
Jeff
jeff at
2017 Oct 13
2
[SelectionDAG] Assertion due to MachineMemOperand flags difference.
Hello,
I've hit an assertion in SelectionDAG where we try to merge 2 loads
that have the same operands but their MMO flags differ. One is
dereferenceable and one is not. I'm not sure what the underlying issue
here is:
1) MDSDNode with the same operands should have the same flags set on
their respective MMO. The fact the flags differ when the
opcode,types,operands and address-space are
2018 Dec 17
4
In ISel, where Constant<0> comes from?
Hello, LLVM devs.
I'm compiling the following simple IR:
define dso_local i32 @main(i32 %argc, i8** %argv) {
entry:
%retval = alloca i32, align 4
%argc.addr = alloca i32, align 4
%argv.addr = alloca i8**, align 8
store i32 0, i32* %retval, align 4
store i32 %argc, i32* %argc.addr, align 4
store i8** %argv, i8*** %argv.addr, align 8
ret i32 0
}
using `llc -march=sparc
2016 Jun 21
3
LLVM Backend Issues
Hi,
I am having issues running a new backend that I created for a new
architecture. I suspect these errors may have something to do with how I
have the string setup in LLVMTargetMachine() below?
Also - It would be great if someone could point me to a document that
describes some of these error messages? For example what does t26 ..t4 mean?
Thanks in advance for taking your valuable time to help
2017 Jul 20
3
Issue with DAG legalization of brcond, setcc, xor
Hi,
I am having some issues with how some of the instructions are being
legalized.
So this is my intial basic block. The area of concern is the last three
instructions. I will pick and choose debug output to keep this small.
SelectionDAG has 36 nodes:
t0: ch = EntryToken
t6: i32,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i32 %vreg507
t2: i32,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i32 %vreg17
2007 Mar 01
2
[LLVMdev] Version 1.9 SSA form question
int %nlz10(uint %param.x) {
%.t3 = shr uint %param.x, ubyte 1 ; <uint>
[#uses=1]
%.t4 = or uint %.t3, %param.x ; <uint> [#uses=2]
%.t7 = shr uint %.t4, ubyte 2 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
%.t8 = or uint %.t7, %.t4 ; <uint> [#uses=2]
%.t11 = shr uint %.t8, ubyte 4 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
2017 Jul 07
2
Error in v64i32 type in x86 backend
also i further run the following command;
llc -debug filer-knl_o3.ll
and its output is attached here. by looking at the output can we say that
legalization runs fine and the error is due to instruction selection/
pattern matching which is not yet implemented?
so do i need to worry and try to correct it at this stage or should i move
forward to implement instruction selection/ pattern matching?