similar to: InstAlias with tied operands - can it be supported?

Hi, On Instructions you can use checkEarlyTargetMatchPredicate() to check that the operands are the same. There's an example of that in MipsAsmParser.cpp for DATI and DAHI. I can't think of a reason TableGen couldn't be made to allow this for InstAlias too. > On 15 Dec 2017, at 02:12, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > InstAlias

Hi Daniel, I defined checkEarlyTargetMatchPredicate() to explicitly check for the tied operands, and it worked. I could define an alias like: InstAlias<"oldOP $rd, $rd, $rs1", (NEWOP $rd, $rs1)> However, I had to additionally change AsmMatcherEmitter 'Hack' variable setting to allow the repeated operand $rd in the AsmString. Do you or anyone else know the history

Hello. I am curious why did you changed TableGen to allow in principle only writing ASM instructions in prefix notation. I ask because I personally use an assembly notation that is infix (I could use a simple preprocessor that changes prefix to infix). Just to mention: I found the solution to this - the following part of the code is responsible for this from

Hi, I'm trying to enable the hexagon LLVM assembly parser. It seem like there is a lot of work that has been done to make this parsing straightforward. But.. Hexagon assembly does not follow the "Mnemonic Rx Rx ." format that is expected by the assembly parsing infrastructure, represented by: StringRef Mnemonic = ((ARMOperand*)Operands[0])->getToken(); This

On Oct 17, 2012, at 3:29 PM, David Young <davidy at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > I’m trying to enable the hexagon LLVM assembly parser. It seem like there is a lot of work that has been done to make this parsing straightforward. > > But…. > Hexagon assembly does not follow the “Mnemonic Rx Rx …” format that is expected by the assembly parsing infrastructure,

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> As a simplification, the compiler deals almost exclusively in pseudo >> instructions. By x86 analogy, using pseudos to unfold a TEST32rm into >> MOV32rm + TEST32rr means I can skip the complex operand fitting effort >> needed to pick specific machine instructions. There are many

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:04:52PM -0500, Stephen Checkoway wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Brad Smith <brad at comstyle.com> wrote: > > > I was wondering if someone with more familiarity with MC > > on X86 could consider looking into adding support for > > the hyphenated versions of the VIA Padlock instructions? > > > Take a look at

On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Brad Smith <brad at comstyle.com> wrote: > I was wondering if someone with more familiarity with MC > on X86 could consider looking into adding support for > the hyphenated versions of the VIA Padlock instructions? Take a look at llvm/lib/Target/X86InstrSystem.td perhaps. -- Stephen Checkoway

I was wondering if someone with more familiarity with MC on X86 could consider looking into adding support for the hyphenated versions of the VIA Padlock instructions? If anyone is up for it there are details within these two bug reports.. http://www.llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8556 http://www.llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=10266 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous

def STOREbos { // InstructionEncoding Instruction RPPInst RPPInstMMEMrr &nbsp; field bits<32&gt; Inst = { 0, 0, 0, 1, rs1{2}, rs1{1}, rs1{0}, index{0}, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, rbase{3}, rbase{2}, rbase{1}, rbase{0}, rbase{4}, roffset{4}, roffset{3}, roffset{2}, roffset{1}, roffset{0}, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }; &nbsp; field bits<32&gt; SoftFail = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,

You are welcome. I changed the pattern, the same old error pop up again, crash in the same place. Type set is empty for each HW mode: possible type contradiction in the pattern below (use -print-records with llvm-tblgen to see all expanded records). vtInt: &nbsp; (vt:{ *:[Other] }) UNREACHABLE executed at /home/nancy/work/rpp_clang/llvm/utils/TableGen/CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp:824!

I'm trying to define a multiply-accumulate instruction for the LEON processor, a Subtarget of the Sparc target. The documentation for the processor is as follows: === To accelerate DSP algorithms, two multiply&accumulate instructions are implemented: UMAC and SMAC. The UMAC performs an unsigned 16-bit multiply, producing a 32-bit result, and adds the result to a 40-bit accumulator made

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386. GNU as supports them fine. Unfortunately, LLVM does not > support them, and barfs with: > > error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix > > Fix this problem by disambiguating it

Hi Krzysztof, Today I try it on llvm9.0.0 version. &nbsp; def bos : RPPInstMMEMrr<OPC_STORE, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (outs), (ins MGPR:$rs1, SGPR32:$rbase, MGPR:$roffset, uimm2:$rshift), &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; !strconcat(opcodestr, ""), "$rs1,

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Don Hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Aaron. > > I don't have a Windows system, and haven't seen any buildbot failures, so I > it's difficult to come up with a patch for something I can't reproduce > locally or see any actual failures. Could you send me the commands you used > that uncovered the failure? This

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Don Hinton via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Jack: > > Yes, I was just looking at that. Seems like TableGen wasn't done along with > the rest of llvm. I'll work up a complete patch shortly. This also broke the build for MSVC when doing a debug build (though no builder seems to be picking up the failure!). After

Hi, The full trace stack: Type set is empty for each HW mode: possible type contradiction in the pattern below (use -print-records with llvm-tblgen to see all expanded records). vtInt: (vt:{ *:[Other] }) UNREACHABLE executed at /home/nancy/work/rpp_clang/llvm/utils/TableGen/CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp:824! [ 85%] Building X86GenEVEX2VEXTables.inc... &nbsp;#0 0x000000000081b9b5

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Don Hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jack: > > Looks like I missed this one in my recent change. > > Please let me know if this solves your problem: > > $ git diff > diff --git a/utils/TableGen/InfoByHwMode.cpp > b/utils/TableGen/InfoByHwMode.cpp > index 7e1e1864356..8d3636432aa 100644 > ---

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Don Hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Don Hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote: >> > Thanks Aaron. >> > >> > I don't have a Windows system, and haven't seen any

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 21:41, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > On 12/13/2018 6:25 AM, Alex Bradbury wrote: > > There's also likely to be cases where you want to calculate the demanded bits > > in order to determine if e.g. a W-suffixed instruction can be selected for > > `(somoeop (zexti32 GPR:$rs1), (zexti32 GPR:$rs2))`. This is easy to match