similar to: how to discriminate pointers in calling conventions

For being able to change subtargets within a compilation unit, among other things, I need to be able to change the target lowering class that is used by BasicTTI For example we have a mips16 and non mips16 version. On the original call that creates this class, I'd like to pass the address of the address of the TargetLoweringBase class. That way I can insert a function pass before this

Another way to do this would to be to have a reset virtual function which is passed the Function, and the address of TLI so that it could be modified. This seems somewhat cleaner. The reset virtual function would be added to base class TargetLoweringBase. On 03/22/2013 09:22 AM, reed kotler wrote: > For being able to change subtargets within a compilation unit, among > other things, I

Just realized that BasicTransformInfoClass is an immutable pass. Not sure how to reconcile this with fact that there will be different answers needed depending on the subtarget. Seems like BasicTansformInfoClass should become a function pass that does not modify anything. On 03/22/2013 09:43 AM, Reed Kotler wrote: > Another way to do this would to be to have a reset virtual function >

Hi Reed, We will need to reconstruct the target machine and the TTI chain when the function attributes change. We currently don't have code for doing that but I suggest that you talk with Bill Wendling about the best way to implement this. Thanks, Nadav On Mar 22, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Just realized that BasicTransformInfoClass is an

Hi, In SelectionDAGISel::SelectAllBasicBlocks if (TM.Options.EnableFastISel) FastIS = TLI->createFastISel(*FuncInfo, LibInfo); followed by if (!FastIS) { LowerArguments(Fn); } else { The above implies that implementing FastIS is optional. In contrast to that, testing whether FastIS is actually been used is done by testing if TM.Options.EnableFastISel is set. For example

Hello, Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major change, affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, eliminate some unnecessary differences between targets, and to facilitate future refactoring and feature work.

Hello All, the patch below adds a target lowering hook to state that the target supports (or not) floating point exception behavior. The patch is small and contains one possible use for the hook (folding potentially exception raising fp operations). Any comments? Thanks Pedro -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: opensource1.txt

Hello, To any out-of-tree targets, please be aware that I intend to commit a patch that will break the build of any target implementing TargetLoweringBase::isFMAFasterThanMulAndAdd, for the reasons described below. (Basically, the current interface definition is broken and not followed, and no in-tree target was doing the right thing with it, so it is unlikely any out-of-tree target is either...)

I assume you meant to ask for ports that *don’t* support floating point exceptions. To my knowledge, neither R600 nor NVPTX support floating point exceptions. —Owen > On Aug 8, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > There's a lot of cut and paste in those routines. Can you do something > to unify it a bit? Also, do we have any ports that

This post is related to the following post http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-April/098823.html I'm still trying to compile a library with clang. But now I'm getting as assert in lib/CodeGen/TargetLoweringBase.cpp:1155: virtual llvm::EVT llvm::TargetLoweringBase::getSetCCResultType(llvm::LLVMContext&, llvm::EVT) const: Assertion `!VT.isVector() && "No default

Hi, I am working on a 64bit architecture where only 'i64' is valid (no hardware floating point support) and I am triggering a 'Promote may not follow Expand or Promote' assertion failure. (TargetLowering.h : getTypeConversion) When I look into it, I see that the conversion fails because llvm tries to convert a 'f32' into a 'i32' through a TypeSoftenFloat. As i32

Hi! So far, GlobalISel only supports very basic inline assembler constructs (no input/output operands, only simple memory clobbers). In [0], I'm adding support for generic register, immediate, memory and clobber constraints. The code is more or less a direct port from the handling in SelectionDAGBuilder. Before moving on with target specific constraints, I'd like to discuss the

Hi, I am working on a patch for CodeGenPrepare, which introduces a use of TargetLoweringBase::InstructionOpcodeToISD (see [1] for the details). This is usual for CodeGenPrepare to use the TargetLowering class when it is available, however, using this particular function creates linking problems. ** Context ** The TargetLowering class is part of libLLVMCodeGen, which means that in theory every

What is the difference between these two functions? The header file for TargetLowering class says that LowerArguments must be implemented, but only the Sparc and IA64 backends implement them. X86, PowerPC and CellSPU implement LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS, but I can find a setOperationAction that states that they should be lowered. Can someone please explain this for me? Thanks, Micah Villmow

On 2015/8/4 3:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [SNIP] >> I'll post 2 LLVM patches by replying this mail. Please have a look and >> help me >> send them to LLVM if you think my code is correct. > > [SNIP] > patch 2: > do we really need to hack clang? > Can you just define a function that aliases to intrinsic, > like we do for ld_abs/ld_ind ? > void

(Sorry for CC'ing piles of people, but didn't want folks to miss this in the mailing list churn.) See the subject. The problem is in the target-independent code generator and especially in the x86 backend. I would like to fix it. This will be a mechanical change just organizing code in a way that makes it easy and fast to find methods and related static helpers. It will not change any

Hi everyone, It seems variable arguments is not support by mips backend in llvm-2.6. int func(int i, ...) { return 0; } llvm-gcc func.c -emit-llvm -c -O3 -o func.bc llc func.bc -relocation-model=static -march=mips -O0 -o func.s Command llc fails: llc:SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp:6440:void llvm::SelectionDAGISel::LowerArguments( llvm::BasicBlock):Assertion 'Invals.size() ==

Dan Gohman wrote: > Hello, > > Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming > arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major change, > affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. > > The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, > eliminate some unnecessary differences between targets,

> > Yes, you need to override both LowerArguments and LowerCallTo. All of > the current targets / abi's use the default implementation in > SelectionDAGISel.cpp But I guess ARM EABI will be the first. :-) As > far as I can see, this is the only clean way to do it. I expect the > ARM EABI specific implementation will be quite a bit simpler than the > default implementation

On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming > arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major > change, > affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. > > The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, > eliminate some unnecessary