similar to: error: In anonymous_4820: Unrecognized node 'VRR128'!

Thank You. How to do the same for add please see the following; it gives duplication error. def VADD : I<0x0E, MRMDestReg, (outs VRR128:$dst), (ins VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2),"VADD\t{$src1, $src2, $dst|$dst, $src1, $src2}", [(set VRR128:$dst, (add VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2))]>, TA; def : Pat<(add VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2), (VADD VRPIM128:$src1, VRPIM128:$src2)>;

Thank You. But can we use same register class for fadd as well, is this instruction correct? def VFADD : I<0x0E, MRMDestReg, (outs VRR128:$dst), (ins VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2),"VFADD\t{$src1, $src2, $dst|$dst, $src1, $src2}", [(set VRR128:$dst, (fadd VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2))]>, TA; On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: >

Hello, i want to work with these types v32f32, v32f64.... in llvm which are undefined in the backend? But v32i32, v32i64 are already defined so i am able to use these. but for other types such as v32f32, v32f64 although i have defined them appropriately in all the files like machinevaluetype.h, valuetypes.cpp etc. i have checked it many times but still getting the following error when build in

Thank you so much. it run fine. Can you please resolve following issue; I now have support for v2048i32 but my backend supports v64i32 so ultimately v2048i32 needs to be split into 32 v64i32 instructions. the only difference between 2 is if its orginally v2048i32 i want my registers assignment from REG_A set. if its v64i32 originally, then i want registers from set REG_B. How to accomplish

I would be very grateful if you specify whether there is some way to allocate registers (different order) / from different register sets to the same instruction based on the vector width/ no of iterations. I have tried several alternatives but could not succeed. Also I have asked this question many times but no one responds. Is there something wrong with this?? Kindly guide me. Thank You On

I 100% get that we might not like the decisions clang-format is making, but how does one overcome this when adding new code? The pre-merge checks enforce clang-formatting before commit and that's a common review comment anyway for those who didn't join the pre-merge checking group. I'm just wondering are we not all following the same guidelines? Concerns of clang-format not being good

Hello, I am getting this error. What instruction is required to be implemented? LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: t22: v32i32 = vselect t724, t11, t16 t724: v32i32,ch = load<LD128[FixedStack1]> t723, FrameIndex:i64<1>, undef:i64 t659: i64 = FrameIndex<1> t10: i64 = undef t11: v32i32,ch = load<LD128[%sunkaddr45](align=4)(tbaa=<0x481f1e8>)> t0, t8, undef:i64

hello, i have a situation where i have to assign the registers to instructions based on the loop iterations. for eg.. the registers are: R_0_V_0, R_0_V_1, R_0_V_2, R_0_V_3, R_1_V_0, R_1_V_1, R_1_V_2, R_1_V_3, R_2_V_0, R_2_V_1, R_2_V_2, R_2_V_3. These registers defined in object Reg_A These are total 12 registers. will use them contiguously, here i define it in above mentioned order i.e

Thank You. Right now to see the effect i did following changes; unsigned X86TTIImpl::getRegisterBitWidth(bool Vector) { if (Vector) { if (ST->hasAVX512()) return 65536; here i changed 512 to 65536. Then in loopvectorize.cpp i did following; assert(MaxVectorSize <= 2048 && "Did not expect to pack so many elements" " into

Here basically my problem is vector width since i have used v64i32 in my backend. now if vector width=64. i want the Reg_B class registers to be assigned and if vector width=2048 i want Reg_A registers to be assigned to instruction. Should i incorporate the solution in lowering stage? some thing like; addRegisterClass(MVT::v2048i32, &X86::Reg_B);

Hello, I need help here. I am able to adjust the vector width through WidestRegister value. When number of iterations=31 and I set vector width=32 it gives <16xi32> and <8xi32> instructions. However if i replicate same behavior with number of iterations=63 and I set vector width=64, no vector instructions are emitted. it should do as previous and gives <32xi32> and

Hi All, I have a question about TableGen RegisterClass definition. I need to map different size of MVTs into a register class as below. def TestReg : RegisterClass<"Test", [v8i32, v4i32], ...> When I look at TableGen and CodeGen, it looks the types are used as following: 1. MCRegisterClass's RegSize and Alignment 2. SpillSize in TableGen 3. Type constraint for instruction

Thank You. Still getting errors.I have modified my instructions as you said as follows: def GATHER_256B : I<0x68, MRMSrcMem, (outs VR_2048:$dst, VK64WM:$mask_wb), (ins VR_2048:$src1, VK64WM:$mask, i2048mem:$src2), "GATHER_256B\t{$src2, {$dst} {${mask}}|${dst} {${mask}}, $src2}", [(set VR_2048:$dst, VK64WM:$mask_wb, (v64i32 (masked_gather

Hello, I did as you said, Please tell me whether the following correct now?? def GATHER_256B : I<0x68, MRMSrcMem, (outs VR_2048:$dst, _.KRCWM:$mask_wb), (VR_2048:$src1, _.KRCWM:$mask, ins i2048mem:$src2), "GATHER_256B\t{$src2, {$dst}{${mask}}|${dst} {${mask}}, $src2}"), [(set VR_2048:$dst, _.KRCWM:$mask_wb, (v64i32 (GatherNode

i want to implement gather for v64i32. i wrote following code. def GATHER_256B : I<0x68, MRMSrcMem, (outs VR_2048:$dst), (ins i2048mem:$src), "GATHER_256B\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", [(set VR_2048:$dst, (v64i32 (masked_gather addr:$src)))], IIC_MOV_MEM>, TA; def: Pat<(v64f32 (masked_gather addr:$src)), (GATHER_256B

Thank You. I got it. Version issue. TTI.getRegisterBitWidth(true) How to put my target machine info in TTI? Please help. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 7/23/2018 10:49 AM, hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev wrote: > > Thank You. > > But I cannot find your mentioned function

A new intel-gpu-tools quarterly release is available with the following changes: - Various new tests and tools - New statistical analysis functions. (Damien Lespiau) - New benchmark tests. (Chris Wilson) - Old register tools that were superseded by intel_reg have been removed. - Various tests have been marked "basic", to indicate they are suitable for use in basic acceptance