similar to: How to debug instruction selection

Hi LLVM-Devs, I have managed to complete updating our sources from LLVM v4.0 to v5.0, but I am getting selection errors for 'callseq_end'. I am aware that the 'ADJCALLSTACKUP' and 'ADJCALLSTACKDOWN' patterns have changed, and have added an additional argument to the TD descriptions for these. There are interactions with 'ISD::CALL' and 'ISD::RET_FLAG',

Hi Martin, Pseudo CALLSEQ_START was changed in r302527, commit message contains details on the changes. However CALLSEQ_END was not modified. If your made changes to ADJCALLSTACKUP to add additional argument, that may result in error. Thanks, --Serge 2017-09-15 19:09 GMT+07:00 Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hi LLVM-Devs, > > I have managed

Hi Serge, Thanks for your help. I have looked at the change log, and so far as I can tell, my implementation is pretty much identical to all of the in-tree targets, but I’m missing something and can’t see what it is. I have simplified my TD description to just: def MyCallseqStart : SDNode<"ISD::CALLSEQ_START", SDCallSeqStart<[SDTCisVT<0, i32>,

Have you read http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html and http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html ? http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html#instruction-selector describes how to define a store instruction. -Eli On 7/6/2017 6:51 PM, hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev wrote: > Please correct me i m stuck at this point. > > On Jul 6, 2017 5:18 PM, "hameeza ahmed"

Hello, i am experimenting with the increase in register/ vector width to 64 elements of 32 bits instead of 16 in x86 backend. for eg. i have a loop with 65 iterations; if my IR generates v64i32 and 1 scalar, still the backend breaks the v64i32 into 4 v16i32. i want it to retain v64i32. like if there are 128 elements in loop then it should break it into 2 v64i32 instructions. in order to do this i

Thank You. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, that error is from instruction selection. I think your legalization > changes worked fine. > > ~Craig > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:21 PM, hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> also i further run the following command;

Thank You. I have seen the opcode is 8 bits and all the combinations are already used in llvm x86. Now what to do? On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes its an opcode conflict. You'll have to look through Intel documents > and find an unused opcode. I've only added instructions based on a real > spec so I don't know

Thank you. i understood how avx512 vector instructions are written in x86instravx512. i need to define my vector instructions so i wrote; def VMOV_256B_RM : I<0x6F, MRMSrcMem, (outs VR2048:$dst), (ins i32mem:$src), "vmov_256B_rm\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", [(set VR2048:$dst, (v64i32 (scalar_to_vector (loadi32 addr:$src))))],

Thank you; i have changed as follows.is it fine now? def VADD_256B : I<0xFE, MRMDestReg, (outs VR2048:$dst), (ins VR2048:$src1, VR2048:$src2), "VADD_256B\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", [(set VR2048:$dst, (add VR2048:$src1, VR2048:$src2))]]>; Also here i have changed class RI to I. Does it make any difference? On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Craig Topper

Hello everyone. I use this command clang -emit-llvm hello.c -c -o hello.bc llc hello.bc -march=mipsel -relocation-model=static -o hello.s to produce this MIPS code: .section .mdebug.abi32 .previous .file "hello.bc" .text .globl main .align 2 .type main, at function .set nomips16 # @main .ent main main: .cfi_startproc .frame $sp,32,$ra .mask 0x80000000,-4 .fmask

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?

Hello, Arnold. > Is there a way to indicate that the register the tail call > instruction uses as destination needs to be valid after the callee > saved registers have been restored? (some X86InstrInfo.td foo magic > maybe ?) It's wrong way to do the things. Because in this case you either violate the ABI for callee, or you're restricted to do tail call lowering only for

> On Mar 14, 2018, at 7:55 PM, Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com> wrote: > > Hi Jonas, > > Thanks for taking a look! It makes linear-dbg-value.ll pass for my target by producing DEBUG_VALUEs correctly. I also tried a simple function with few operations and confirmed DEBUG_VALUEs which are not produced without trasferDbgValues in SetPromotedInteger. That’s great news! Do

Hi all, Our target does not have native support for 64-bit integers, so we rely on library calls for certain operations (like sdiv). We recently ran into a problem where these operations that are expanded to library calls aren't maintaining the proper ordering in relation to other chains in the DAG. The following snippet of a DAG demonstrates the problem. t0: ch = EntryToken t2:

Hi Anton and Dale first thanks for your answers. On 8 Aug 2007, at 16:43, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Arnold. > >> Is there a way to indicate that the register the tail call >> instruction uses as destination needs to be valid after the callee >> saved registers have been restored? (some X86InstrInfo.td foo magic >> maybe ?) > It's wrong way to do the

Hi, Is there a kind of scope mechanism in the instruction lowering pattern language in order to control where instructions are inserted or how they are later reordered during the SelectionDiag linearization? I know the glue chain that stick instructions together. But such mechanism in not provided in instruction lowering pattern. I'm facing many situations where some patterns are lowered into

The DAG dumping will try to print some of the nodes "inline" (i.e. where they are used) to make the output more readable, so the dump of the DAG may not strictly reflect the node ordering. -Krzysztof On 5/4/2018 8:18 AM, Dominique Torette via llvm-dev wrote: > Here is a last example to illustrate my concern. > > The problem is about the lowering of node t13. > >

Here is a last example to illustrate my concern. The problem is about the lowering of node t13. Initial selection DAG: BB#0 '_start:entry' SelectionDAG has 44 nodes: t11: i16 = Constant<0> t0: ch = EntryToken t3: ch = llvm.clp.set.rspa t0, TargetConstant:i16<392>, Constant:i32<64> t5: ch = llvm.clp.set.rspb t3,

Krzysztof, Thanks for your interest to my questions. In order to clarify the context, here is the C source file of my test case. The 3 builtins initialize some stack pointers. They have to be executed before any other instruction. extern float fdivfaddfmul_a(float a, float b, float c, float d); volatile static float x1,x2,x3,x4; void _start(void) { float res;

Hi Evan, first off thanks to you and Chris for taking time. On 6 Sep 2007, at 00:57, Evan Cheng wrote: > We'd like to see tail call optimization to be similar to the target > independent lowering of ISD::CALL nodes. These are auto-generated > from ???CallingConv.td files. Some target specific details such as > function address register (ECX in your example) should be coded in