similar to: Using new types v32f32, v32f64 in llvm backend not possible

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

hello, i need to use v32i32 and v32f32 in store instructions. I defined my register as; def VRR128 : RegisterClass<"X86", [v32i32, v32f32], 1024, (add R_0_V_0, R_1_V_0, R_2_V_0)>; def STORE_DWORD : I<0x70, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins i2048mem:$dst, VRR128:$src), "STORE_DWORD\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}",

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: >

Please tell me whether the following implementation is correct..... My target supports 64 bit mask means immediate(0-2^63) I have implemented it but i dont know whether its correct or not. Please see the changes below that i have made in x86isellowering.cpp static SDValue lower2048BitVectorShuffle(const SDLoc &DL, ArrayRef<int> Mask, MVT VT,

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

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 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

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

I tried adding them in my backend however I run into the assertion assert((unsigned)VT.SimpleTy < sizeof(LoadExtActions[0])*4 && ExtType < array_lengthof(LoadExtActions) && "Table isn't big enough!"); What does the assertion mean ? thanks for all help!! shrey On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM, shreyas krishnan <shreyas76 at gmail.com> wrote: > I tried adding them in my backend however I run into the assertion > >  assert((unsigned)VT.SimpleTy < sizeof(LoadExtActions[0])*4 && >           ExtType < array_lengthof(LoadExtActions) && >           "Table isn't big enough!"); > > What does the

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 wanted to inform that I fixed the bug from the previous email. The main reason for the bug was that I thought that the SDNode masked_gather is returning only 1 value, but it returns 2 (hence, I guess, the earlier reported, difficult to follow, error: "Assertion `New->getNumTypes() == 1"). masked_gather returns 2 values because: // SDTypeProfile -

Hello. I fixed the bug reported in the previous post on this thread (<<llvm::MemSDNode::MemSDNode(unsigned int, unsigned int, const llvm::DebugLoc&, llvm::SDVTList, llvm::EVT, llvm::MachineMemOperand*): Assertion `memvt.getStoreSize() <= MMO->getSize() && "Size mismatch!"' failed.>>) The problem with this strange error reported comes from

Hi, So, we currently have gc.result.int, gc.result.float. gc.result.ptr, gc.relocate, and gc.statepoint. gc.statepoint's signature is fine with a iPTRAny as the first argument. gc.result is in trouble, because none of the signatures admit even a simple array of integers, and there's no aAny. And certainly no vectors. So we can get a gc.result.vector to add to this mess, and admit [1] to

I'm trying to understand why this assertion is here. LegalizeAction getCondCodeAction(ISD::CondCode CC, EVT VT) const { assert((unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(CondCodeActions) && (unsigned)VT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy < sizeof(CondCodeActions[0])*4 && "Table isn't big enough!"); LegalizeAction Action = (LegalizeAction)

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:15:35 +0000 "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Well, I found out the reason why this assert is here, and this is > problematic. > > CondCodeActions only supports up to 32 different value types. Since > we are past 32, what LLVM has is broken. > > Currently the 4 different Legalize states are stored in successive >

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

Hello. Will, thanks a lot for pointing me to the MaskedGatherSDNode and mgatherv4i32. I have to say that the definition of the "multiclass avx512_gather" from lib/Target/X86/X86InstrAVX512.td is difficult to follow and I prefer not to use it. I currently have some serious problems with TableGen - it gives an assertion failure: