similar to: [LLVMdev] trig language-like code generator generator

On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 07:15:03PM +0800, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > i'd like to know if there is any plan or existing work to add a Aho's > trig language like code generator generator? I'm not aware of either the trig language code generator nor any work to implement it in LLVM. > "...If you are starting a new port, we recommend that you write the > instruction

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=75700 On 4/25/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > > i'd like to know if there is any plan or existing work to add a Aho's > > trig language like code generator generator? > > Trig is a code generator generator? Is there any documentation for it > available

i'd like to know what progress you guys have made (not on cvs?). i don't want to re-invent wheels, and the existing many code generator generators. i am evaluating many possbile code generation libraries. at present i give me preferrence to "Prop": http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/prop.html and it's portable too. are there any other good library you could recommend?

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=75700 Oh, tWig. :) Yes, tree pattern matching is exactly the direction we are heading. We are slowly making the code generators more and more automatically generated as time goes on. The SelectionDAG infrastructure is mean to support exactly this (perform Tree or DAG pattern matching on the optimized DAG

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > i'd like to know what progress you guys have made (not on cvs?). Everything is in CVS. Noone is currently working on automating the pattern matching generator process yet. Before doing that, there are a few changes we want to make to the SelectionDAG interface. In particular, right now, the selection process basically works like this: #1.

the proposed architecture (chris) doesn't seem to attack the phase ordering problem. through having independent instruction selection, instruction scheduling, and register allocation phases faciliate a modular design, but i believe the phase-coupled code generator generator high quality code on many architectures. espeically in the embedded system like a media/dsp processors with very limited

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > i'd like to know if there is any plan or existing work to add a Aho's > trig language like code generator generator? Trig is a code generator generator? Is there any documentation for it available anywhere? -Chris > "...If you are starting a new port, we recommend that you write the > instruction selector using the

The macro $src, $dest used in Instruction::AsmString must be "declared" in Instruction::OperandList, right? $$ has special meaning? On 5/6/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > > llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td: > > class X86Inst<bits<8> opcod, Format f, ImmType i, dag ops, string > >

llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td: class X86Inst<bits<8> opcod, Format f, ImmType i, dag ops, string AsmStr> : Instruction { .... dag OperandList = ops; string AsmString = AsmStr; } def MOV32mi : Ii32<0xC7, MRM0m, (ops i32mem:$dst, i32imm:$src), "mov{l} {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}">; I cannot find any document on initializing the

The BGL (Boost Graph Library) defines tie(), which is exactly what the tie() defined in STLExtras.h. The header files of GBL use boost::tie(), and other boost libraries use boost::tie() too. How to resolve the ambiguity for compiler? -- Tzu-Chien Chiu, 3D Graphics Hardware Architect <URL:http://www.csie.nctu.edu.tw/~jwchiu>

On Fri, 6 May 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td: > class X86Inst<bits<8> opcod, Format f, ImmType i, dag ops, string > AsmStr> : Instruction { > .... > dag OperandList = ops; > string AsmString = AsmStr; > } > > def MOV32mi : Ii32<0xC7, MRM0m, (ops i32mem:$dst, i32imm:$src), > "mov{l}

Hi, everyone. I' have three set of registers - read-only regs, general purpose regs (read and write), and write-only regs. How should I partition them into different RegisterClasses so that I can easy define the instruction? All RegisterClasses must be mutally exclusive. That is, a register can only be in a RegisterClass. Otherwise TableGen will raise an error message. def

All registers in my hardware are 4-element vector registers (128-bit). Some are floating point registers, and the others are integer registers. I typedef two packed classes: [4 x float] and [4 x int], and add an enum 'packed' to MVT::ValueType (ValuesTypes.h). I declared all 'RegisterClass'es to be 'packed' (first argument of RegisterClass): def GeneralPurposeRC :

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:29:38AM +0800, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > I' have three set of registers - read-only regs, general purpose regs > (read and write), and write-only regs. How should I partition them > into different RegisterClasses so that I can easy define the > instruction? [snip] > def MOV : BinaryInst<2, (ops GeneralPurposeRegClass :$dest, >

I don't understand the following code snippet in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp. Why changing the type of the opreand from a virtual register to a machine register? The register number (reg) is still a virtual register index (>1024). bool LiveIntervals::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &fn) { // perform a final pass over the instructions and compute spill // weights, coalesce

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

why there is no general dependency analysis for the "machin code"? perhaps it's because the instruction scheduling is only implemented for sparcv9? i am going to implement a dependency analysis pass for machine code block. the result will be returned in a boost graph (http://www.boost.org/libs/graph/doc/table_of_contents.html). just to check if it has already been implemented. it

I though LiveVariables may be invalidated by LiveIntervals, but it's declared not: void LiveIntervals::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addPreserved<LiveVariables>(); AU.addRequired<LiveVariables>(); ... LiveInterval may coalesce virtual registers and remove identity moves instructions: bool LiveIntervals::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &fn) {

2005/7/23, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: > > What does a 'read only' register mean? Is it a constant (e.g. returns > 1.0)? Otherwise, how can it be a useful value? Yes, it's a constant register. Because the instruction cannot contain an immediate value, a constant value may be stored in a constant register, and it's defined _before_ the program starts by

In my ISA, some registers are write-only. These registers serve as output ports, writing to these registers will output the values to an external device. They cannot be read. So their live intervals should not be joined with any other registers. The only way I know to do this is defining several instruction 'templates' for an opcode (of course automatically generated by a script) similar