similar to: Options for custom CCState, CCAssignFn, and GlobalISel

On 4 January 2018 at 17:10, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the MipsCCState. Thanks for the insight Daniel, much appreciated. >> * MipsCCState: adds bool

I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the MipsCCState. > On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > This question came about through reviewing work from Leslie Zhai on GlobalISel > support for RISC-V, which also motivated me to revisit code which I've always > felt was a

> On 4 Jan 2018, at 10:51, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: > > On 4 January 2018 at 17:10, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the

Hi LLVM developers, Don't be quiet :) we need your suggestions for supporting custom CCState, CCAssignFn in D41700. And also RegisterBank in D41653. because it needs to consider about how to support variable-sized register classes concept implemented in D24631. And I think you might have same question when porting to GlobalISel for your Targets, so please give us some directions, thanks

Hi LLVM developers, I am not available from February 11th to February 25th due to Chinese Spring Festival and my sincere thanks goto: Anna Zaks:     She lead me to the LLVM family and reviewed my patch for clang analyzer MallocChecker carefully and patiently. Дуже дякую Artem Dergachev:     He reviewed my patches for clang analyzer some Checkers carefully. Большое спасибо Dylan McKay:

Hi, I would like to start a new porting of GlobalIsel for RISCV. An initial patch about GlobalIsel infrastructure for RISCV was ready now: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65219 There is another porting patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D41653 posted by Leslie Zhai at the end of 2017. I have checked with Leslie about the status of this patch.He has stopped developing it since some questions need be

Hey Tim, thanks for the quick answer, this looks exactly like what I was trying to achieve, I was hoping there was something more clean, I was wondering how the community would accept a change in the TD, if the code at CallinvConvLower.cpp:138 would've passed the IsFixed flag to the AssignFn then all those workarounds wouldn't be needed, this example is only one of a few I can think of for

Although it's not generally needed for ARM's use of CCCustom, I return two bools to handle the four possible outcomes to keep the mechanism flexible: * if CCCustomFn handled the arg or not * if CCCustomFn wants to end processing of the arg or not I placed the "unsigned i" outside those loops because i is used after the loop. If there's a better index search pattern, I'd

I think I've got all the cases handled now, implementing with CCCustom<"foo"> callbacks into C++. This also fixes a crash when returning i128. I've also included a small asm constraint fix that was needed to build newlib. deep On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Sandeep Patel wrote:

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Sandeep Patel wrote: > >> Although it's not generally needed for ARM's use of CCCustom, I return >> two bools to handle the four possible outcomes to keep the mechanism >> flexible: >> >> * if CCCustomFn handled the arg or not >>

On Wednesday 04 Apr 2012 12:41:49 Patrik Hägglund H wrote: > Hi Tim, > > > So I've come to the conclusion that the real flaw is LLVM > > not exposing enough information to the target-dependent > > backend code for it to do the right thing. > > We also had this problem. You might find this patch useful as a starting > point:

ARMTargetLowering doesn't need case #1, but it seemed like you and Dan wanted a more generic way to inject C++ code into the process so I tried to make the mechanism a bit more general. deep On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 13, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Sandeep Patel wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Evan Cheng

On Feb 12, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Sandeep Patel wrote: > Although it's not generally needed for ARM's use of CCCustom, I return > two bools to handle the four possible outcomes to keep the mechanism > flexible: > > * if CCCustomFn handled the arg or not > * if CCCustomFn wants to end processing of the arg or not +/// CCCustomFn - This function assigns a location for Val,

Hi Josef, > Okay, I've done a lot more testing and I now have a .bc file that compiles for x86, sparc, mips but refuses to compile for the mblaze and powerPC backends because of the calling convention. Is there anyone that would know how to fix the microblaze calling convention or point me in the right direction on how to fix it? what does "refuses to compile" mean? I.e. what

Sure. Updated patches attached. deep On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 13, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Sandeep Patel wrote: > >> ARMTargetLowering doesn't need case #1, but it seemed like you and Dan >> wanted a more generic way to inject C++ code into the process so I >> tried to make the mechanism a bit more

Thanks. More questions :-) /// Information about how the value is assigned. - LocInfo HTP : 7; + LocInfo HTP : 6; Do you know why this change is needed? Are we running out of bits? - NeededStackSize = 4; - break; - case MVT::i64: - case MVT::f64: - if (firstGPR < 3) - NeededGPRs = 2; - else if (firstGPR == 3) { - NeededGPRs = 1; - NeededStackSize = 4; -

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > > One problem with this approach is that since i64 isn't legal, the > bitcast would require custom C++ code in the ARM target to > handle properly. It might make sense to introduce something > like > > CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom> > > where CCCustom is a new entity that tells the

On Feb 13, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Sandeep Patel wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> On Feb 12, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Sandeep Patel wrote: >> >>> Although it's not generally needed for ARM's use of CCCustom, I >>> return >>> two bools to handle the four possible outcomes to keep

Thanks Sandeep. I did a quick scan, this looks really good. But I do have a question: +/// CCCustomFn - This function assigns a location for Val, possibly updating +/// all args to reflect changes and indicates if it handled it. It must set +/// isCustom if it handles the arg and returns true. +typedef bool CCCustomFn(unsigned &ValNo, MVT &ValVT, + MVT

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > /// Information about how the value is assigned. > - LocInfo HTP : 7; > + LocInfo HTP : 6; > > Do you know why this change is needed? Are we running out of bits? HTP was't using all of these bits. I needed the hasCustom bit to come from somewhere unless we wanted to grow this struct, so I