similar to: [SelectionDAG] Assertion due to MachineMemOperand flags difference.

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:

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;

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. > >

I have added new instructions to my target, unfortunately they are not being properly type legalized. The instructions I've added are a vector add, vector load and a vector store. Can anyone lend a hand on how to legalize them so that my target would be able to recognize them. Below is the output of llc with a -debug-only=isel. As you could see the output type for load, store, and add changes

Hi, I'm trying to optimize the 'extract_vector_elt' for my SIMD microcontroller. The idea is, during DAG combination, to merge load/extract sequence into an architecture specific node. During Instruction Selection, this specific node will be target selected to an architecture specific instruction. By 'combination of DAG nodes' I understand 'replacing a set of DAG nodes by

Sanjay, I'm looking at some missed optimizations caused by D70246. Here's a test case: define <4 x float> @f(i32 %t32, <4 x float>* %t24) { .entry: %t43 = insertelement <3 x i32> undef, i32 %t32, i32 2 %t44 = bitcast <3 x i32> %t43 to <3 x float> %t45 = shufflevector <3 x float> %t44, <3 x float> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 undef,

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

Andy, et al., I'm experimenting with better condition-register-bit tracking in the PowerPC backend, and I've run across a problem: the scheduling seems to be scheduling glued nodes out of order: Starting with this: 0x10015677970: i32 = Register %CR0 0x10015679080: i32 = TargetConstant<3> ... 0x10015671b80: i32 = TargetConstant<1>

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

But isn't kinda silly that we transform to xor and then we transform it back. What is the advantage in doing so? Also, since we do that method, I now have to introduce setcc patterns for i1 values, instead of being able to just use logical pattern operators like not. -Dilan On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM Dilan Manatunga <manatunga at gmail.com> wrote: > For some reason I

I would like to revive this thread, as I am struggling a lot with the FP16 implementation in the ARM backend. My implementation in https://reviews.llvm.org/D38315 is finished (except one case), but a more robust alternative implementation was suggested. One can indeed argue that my current implementation is a bit fragile, because it involves manually patching up the isel dags for a few cases. The

Hi Sjoerd, For ISel, I think having a separate register class will give you less headache. I wondering if you could get away with not touching the instructions descriptions at all, instead defining external pattens for the FullFP16 case, like so: def VCVTBHS: ASuI<0b11101, 0b11, 0b0010, 0b01, 0, (outs SPR:$Sd), (ins SPR:$Sm), IIC_fpCVTSH, "vcvtb",

Thanks! It looks like SelectionDAG::salvageDebugInfo handles only addition with constant. Sejong From: aprantl at apple.com <aprantl at apple.com> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:53 PM To: Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com> Cc: jdevlieghere at apple.com; Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; pidgeot18 at gmail.com Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [SelectionDAG]

After PrologEpilogCodeInserter I found that the instructions that restore callee saved registers S0,S1,LR are in the wrong location ,the instructions are: %S0<def> = LD %SP, 36; mem:LD4[FixedStack2] %S1<def> = LD %SP, 40; mem:LD4[FixedStack1] %LR<def> = LD %SP, 44; mem:LD4[FixedStack0] (LR is the Return address register) the whole code of print-machineinstrs are: # After

Hi Jonas, I have another case that DBG_VALUE is not produced. I would appreciate it if you could take a quick look at the testcase below. test code: llc -mtriple=aarch64 -stop-after=livedebugvalues -o - test.ll ; Function Attrs: nounwind ssp uwtable define void @f() #0 !dbg !4 { entry: tail call void @h(i16 0) #2, !dbg !14 %call = tail call i16 (...) @g() #2, !dbg !15 tail call void

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

> On Apr 30, 2018, at 1:49 PM, Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com> wrote: > > Hi Jonas, > > I have another case that DBG_VALUE is not produced. I would appreciate it if you could take a quick look at the testcase below. > > > test code: > > llc -mtriple=aarch64 -stop-after=livedebugvalues -o - test.ll > > ; Function Attrs: nounwind ssp uwtable >

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

I see we're missing an isel pattern for add producing carry and doing a memory RMW. I'm going to see if adding that helps anything. ~Craig On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Nirav Davé via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Yes. I'm seeing that as well. Not clear what's going on. > > In any case it looks to be unrelated to the alias analysis so barring