similar to: TargetOpcode::KILL confusion

Each register is a 4-component (namely, r, g, b, a) vector register. They are actually defined as llvm packed [4xfloat]. The instruction: add_sat r0.a, r1_bias.xxyy, r3_x2.zzzz Explaination: '.a' is a writemask. only the specified component will be update '.xxyy' and '.zzzz' are swizzle masks, specify the component permutation, simliar to the Intel SSE permutation

Actually the problems that Tzu-Chien Chiu are encountering are similar to what should be done for generating SSE code in the X86 backend and also other SIMD instruction sets. I think LLVM neeeds to add instructions for permuting components, extracting and injecting elements in packed types. If the architecture has instructions which can do permutations for each instruction (for example

We have a function that has 256 loads and 256 fmuladds. This block of operations is bounded at either end by an OpenCL barrier (an AMDIL fence instruction). The loads and multiply/adds are ordinarily interleaved... that is, the IR going in to code generation looks like: %39 = load float addrspace(3)* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x [17 x float]] addrspace(3)* @sgemm.b, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0), align

Hi *, to decide in which namespace tablegen should place the instruction-enum, tablegen iterates over CodeGenTarget instructions until it finds an Instruction with a namespace other than "TargetInstInfo".. but this is wrong, as internal Instructions now use "TargetOpcode" as Namespace.. As Instructions are a map, it is only by chance which is the first instruction it finds -

Hi, It seems to me that the TwoAddressInstructionPass::runOnMachineFunction method has some problems when the tied destination register has a subReg. The two changes below improves the situation for me but I'm all new to this so I'm not sure how it's supposed to work. I'm running on 2.9. Any comments? @@ -1172,12 +1172,20 @@ bool

This patch seems to have been lost on the llvm-commits mailing list. Would someone be able to review it? Thanks, Tom ________________________________________ From: llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] on behalf of Tom Stellard [thomas.stellard at amd.com] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:55 PM To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [llvm-commits]

Hi Daniel, Thanks for replying; I was hoping to get in touch with you on this issue. I had a look at how SelectionIDAG does it when generating the matcher table, and it does consider the implicit defs as additional output. Here is the match table generated for the pattern: /* 0*/ OPC_CheckOpcode, TARGET_VAL(ISD::SIGN_EXTEND), /* 3*/ OPC_MoveChild0, /* 4*/ OPC_CheckOpcode,

On 5/14/2012 9:18 AM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > > On May 14, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Ashok Nalkund<ashoknn at qualcomm.com> wrote: > >> I was able to get past the error by calling InitializeNativeTargetAsmParser() in my code. Now I have a failure in resolving external libraries, so looking into that (recompiled with --enable-ffi but I now get an error LLVMgold.so not found). >>

I was able to get past the error by calling InitializeNativeTargetAsmParser() in my code. Now I have a failure in resolving external libraries, so looking into that (recompiled with --enable-ffi but I now get an error LLVMgold.so not found). Then I hda to disable the following code in lib/Target/X86/X86CodeEmitter.cpp: > case TargetOpcode::INLINEASM: > // We allow inline

On May 14, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Ashok Nalkund <ashoknn at qualcomm.com> wrote: > I was able to get past the error by calling InitializeNativeTargetAsmParser() in my code. Now I have a failure in resolving external libraries, so looking into that (recompiled with --enable-ffi but I now get an error LLVMgold.so not found). > > Then I hda to disable the following code in

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:17:11PM -0800, Lang Hames wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I'm pretty sure this function should only ever be called once, by > SelectionDAG. Do you know where the second call is coming from in your code? > > Cheers, > Lang. Hi Lang, I was calling EmitLiveInCopies() from one of my backend specific passes. If the function can only be called once, then

Hi Tom, I'm pretty sure this function should only ever be called once, by SelectionDAG. Do you know where the second call is coming from in your code? Cheers, Lang. On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Stellard, Thomas <Tom.Stellard at amd.com>wrote: > This patch seems to have been lost on the llvm-commits mailing list. > Would someone be able to review it? > > Thanks, >

Hello! At Sony we've seen some serious customer interest in having the 'this' pointer visible throughout an entire function during debugging. However, optimizations may eliminate it after its last use, so we've been looking for a way to artificially extend its liverange to the end of the function. So far, the most compelling way we can think of, and one we have used successfully

> On Aug 24, 2015, at 4:46 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is the snippet that matters: > > void > InstrEmitter::AddRegisterOperand(MachineInstrBuilder &MIB, > SDValue Op, > unsigned IIOpNum, > const MCInstrDesc *II, >

Hmm, okay. Then what's the problem being reported here? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with "LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: t1: i16 = Constant<127>".BTW, the function is: ; ModuleID = 'return.c' source_filename = "return.c" target datalayout = "E-m:e-p:16:16:16-i1:16:16-i8:16:16-i16:16:16-i32:16:16-i64:16:16-S16-n16" target triple =

Hi Tom, As far as I can tell EmitLiveInCopies is just there to handle physreg arguments and return values. Is there any reason for these to change late in your backend? - Lang. On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com>wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:17:11PM -0800, Lang Hames wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > I'm pretty sure this

Quentin, This is the issue. Somewhere prior to the constrainRegClass, it's assigning the GPRBase sub class of GPR to the MOV instruction, so it can't constrain it to Base and hence has to add the COPY. Now I just need to find out why it is ignoring the TableGen defined GPRBase for the MOV MI in favor of it's sub class GPR. Thanks. On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Ryan Taylor

I'm trying to fix a bug in the PowerPC SPE backend that prevents a bunch of FreeBSD ports from building, including gtk20. The attached file, generated from the following C source, triggers the "Def == PreviousDef" assertion in isNopCopy(): typedef float a; typedef struct { a b, c; } complex; d(complex *e, complex *h) { double f = h->c, g = h->b; i(g); e->c = g *

> On Aug 24, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm trying to do something like this: > > // Dst = NewVReg's reg class > // *II = MCInstrDesc > // IIOpNum = II Operand Num > > if (TRI->getCommonSubClass(DstRC, TRI->getRegClass(II->OpInfo[IIOpNum].RegClass)) == DstRC) > MRI->setRegClass(VReg, DstRC); >

Oops, forgot to reply-all (& adding a few other people to the 'to' line) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] extending liveness of 'this' pointer via FAKE_USE opcode To: "Pieb, Wolfgang" <Wolfgang_Pieb at playstation.sony.com> On Mon, Sep 21,