similar to: unsigned operations with negative numbers

add object rules so that the division, remainder and friends get really build on sparc, patch from Fabio M. Di Nitto <fabbione@ubuntu.com>. reworked to apply on latest git tree. Signed-off-by: maximilian attems <maks@sternwelten.at> --- Has been since long in the Debian and Ubuntu klibc. diff --git a/klibc/arch/sparc/Makefile.inc b/klibc/arch/sparc/Makefile.inc index

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 12:29 PM Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > > It's not correct (output of Alive2): > > define half @fn(half %a) { > %b = fadd half %a, undef > ret half %b > } > => > define half @fn(half %a) { > ret half undef > } > Transformation doesn't verify! > ERROR: Value mismatch > > Example: > half %a

Hi, Consider the following test case: int foo(float *A, float *B, float *C, int len, int VSMALL) { for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) if (C[i] > VSMALL) A[i] = B[i] / C[i]; } In this test the div operation is conditional but llvm is generating unconditional div for this case: vector.body: ; preds = %vector.body, %vector.ph %index = phi i64 [

Hi LLVM, This is my idea I had some time ago, when I realized that LLVM did not support legalization of some arithmetic instructions like mul i256. I have implemented very simple and limited version of that in my project. Is it something LLVM users would appreciate? 1. The pass transforms IR and is meant to be run before CodeGen (after IR optimizations). 2. The pass replaces

Here are some clarifications for the reference manual. Please verify that my assumptions are correct. Shall I post a patch? Floating-point Constants: Add "The assembler requires the exact decimal value of a floating-point constant. For example, the assembler accepts '1.25' but rejects '1.3' because '1.3' is a repeating decimal in binary." Binary

Hi, I’d like to propose to extend LLVM IR intrinsics set, adding new ones for safe-division. There are intrinsics for detecting overflow errors, like sadd.with.overflow, and the intrinsics I’m proposing will augment this set. The new intrinsics will return a structure with two elements according to the following rules: safe.[us]div(x,0) = safe.[us]rem(x,0) = {0, 1} safe.sdiv(min<T>, -1) =

Hi Russell- The PIC16 is an 8-bit target, and the msp430 is a 16-bit target. The rules about the largest supported integer no longer apply as much- for most operations, codegen can now handle arbitrary precision (exceptions: mul, udiv, urem, sdiv, srem). For those five, library calls should be emitted for big integers - best way to check if they're supported is to just try them :) Alastair

Does LLVM support any target platforms on which the natural integer size/pointer size is smaller than 32 bits? For example, I noticed mention of PIC16, is that such a platform? If so, does the usual rule about the largest supported integer being the size of two pointers still apply? So that on that platform you can't use 64-bit integers, but you can use 32-bit integers?

Introduction: We would like to add new keyword to 'sdiv'\'udiv' instructions i.e. 'no-overflow'. This is the updated solution devised in the discussion: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118257.html The proposed keywords: "nof" stands for 'no-overflow' Syntax: <result> = sdiv nof <ty> <op1>,

Hi, I am working with SCEVs, I see the unsigned division of SCEVs, it is not immediately clear to me why the signed division of SCEV expressions is not supported by SE? I would appreciate if some could clarify or point me to some links. -- Regards, DTharun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I am trying to understand how LLVM does code generation and I have a couple of questions. I am using LLVM 2.6. First, if I want to change the name of an instruction, all I need to do is to modify the XXXInstrInfo.td, right? Using Sparc as an example, if I wanted to output "mysra" instead of "sra", in SparcInstrInfo.td, I would write, defm SRA : F3_12<"mysra",

Hi llvm-dev, Looks like currently ScalarEvolution will give up if there is a sdiv in array subscript, e.g. int i; A[i * 64 / 2] in this case ScalarEvolution will just return an unknown for (i * 64 / 2). For this case, InstCombine will do the jobs, but in general, is there a pass to deal with the sdiv here? like replace sdiv by udiv based on the range of "i"? Thanks Hongbin

Hi guys, I just noticed that the LLVM has some node for signed/unsigned type( like udiv, sdiv), but why the ADD, SUB do not have the counter part sadd, uadd? best kevin

Thank you for your answer! I tested your example, yes, perhaps I should preserve some kind of tree to parse this start and end expressions for induction variable... I was surprised, that SCEV cannot compute the tripcount here. I thought, that all linear and maybe expressions with multiplication are suitable for analysis. 2017-08-10 19:30 GMT+02:00 Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at google.com>: > Hi

To continue this topic: sometimes SCEV's behavior is rather controversial : for loops with i changing as i \=2 for example, he can't figure what the type of expressions is, but surprisingly can determine max trip count. Shouldn't it be able to detect or not detect these parameters at the same time? 2017-08-11 15:56 GMT+02:00 Anastasiya Ruzhanskaya < anastasiya.ruzhanskaya at

On April 25, 2014 at 9:52:35 AM, Eric Christopher (echristo at gmail.com) wrote: Hi Michael, > I’d like to propose to extend LLVM IR intrinsics set, adding new ones for > safe-division. There are intrinsics for detecting overflow errors, like > sadd.with.overflow, and the intrinsics I’m proposing will augment this set. > > The new intrinsics will return a structure with two

Hi Eli, Thanks. Do you mean ideally we should extend SimplifyIndVar to do the sdiv->udiv replacement? Thanks Hongbin On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 3/29/2017 10:35 AM, Hongbin Zheng via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Hi llvm-dev, >> >> Looks like currently ScalarEvolution will give up if there is a sdiv in

This support was removed years ago from indvars. We don't need canonical induction variables any more as all analysis are done on SCEVs. The SCEV generator can transform them even without the need for explicit canonical induction variables. Best, Tobias On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, at 14:23, Anastasiya Ruzhanskaya via llvm-dev wrote: > The files of this strange pass are described here >

Ok, thank you. I have also one question about getelementptr. In different versions of clang I see that sometimes array[i][i] is preceded by two getelementptr instructions and sometimes only by one - with an already complex index. 2017-09-01 12:50 GMT+02:00 David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>: > On 1 Sep 2017, at 11:44, Anastasiya Ruzhanskaya via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev

I am primarily interested in phi nodes and their induction variables, in ValueTracking file there is an analysis of them, but if the upper bound is inf, it is not working? 2017-08-07 11:41 GMT+02:00 Anastasiya Ruzhanskaya < anastasiya.ruzhanskaya at frtk.ru>: > So, it is not supported to determine by this instruction : %cmp = icmp slt > i32 %i.03, 99, > that %i.03 = phi i32 [ 0,