similar to: [LLVMdev] Define an instruction with many operands

There are LLVM 2.9 RC1 pre-release tarballs source available. You can find them here: http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.9/ Please download them, build them, and compile things to your heart's content. And most importantly file a bunch of bug reports. :-) Share and enjoy! -bw

Have you read http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html and http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html ? http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html#instruction-selector describes how to define a store instruction. -Eli On 7/6/2017 6:51 PM, hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev wrote: > Please correct me i m stuck at this point. > > On Jul 6, 2017 5:18 PM, "hameeza ahmed"

On 7/10/2015 10:23 AM, Sky Flyer wrote: > Many thanks for your prompt reply. > > I mean, imagine you have 3 bits for condition flags in your instruction > (e.g. overflow, zero, carry set, ...) for conditional executions AND > there is no direct access to the Status Register, is it even possible to > implement such scenario? > There doesn't have to be any explicit status

Hi all, When compiling some programs using the Mips backend i'm getting this assert message on lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:227: "Range is not entirely in interval!" I don't know yet if it's something that is missing on the backend code or why the range to be removed it outside the interval, does anyone have any clue? A more detailed output is attached. The program i tried

Many thanks for your prompt reply. I mean, imagine you have 3 bits for condition flags in your instruction (e.g. overflow, zero, carry set, ...) for conditional executions AND there is no direct access to the Status Register, is it even possible to implement such scenario? On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek < kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 7/10/2015 9:32

Hey all, I am trying to implement a new subtarget for the X86 target that has only 64 bit registers and instructions and a very minimal ISA excluding any FPU instructions etc. I have made the required changes to the instructions such that all the instructions that I don't wish to use have a required<> clause that precludes them from being utilised when compiling for this subtarget.

Hi LLVM-Folks, as mentioned in an earlier post (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-July/051677.html) I am currently working on a Back-End for the TriCore processor. Currently, I am struggling as LLVM could not select zext and load, for instance, so some of the testcases in test/CodeGen/Generic are not successfully compiled by my back-end. Furthermore, I am completely puzzled by the

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Fabian Scheler > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:12 AM > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: [LLVMdev] More Back-End Porting Troubles > > Hi LLVM-Folks, > > as mentioned in an earlier post >

On 2011-03-09 02:51, Bill Wendling wrote: > There are LLVM 2.9 RC1 pre-release tarballs source available. You can find them here: > llvm 2.9rc1 test on Dualcore ARM running Ubuntu Natty gunzip llvm-2.9rc1.src.tar.gz tar zxvf llvm-2.9rc1.src.tar cd llvm-2.9-build ../llvm-2.9rc1/configure --enable-shared time make clean ;time make CXXFLAGS=-marm CFLAGS=-marm xranby at

Hello Everyone, I am trying to make a new LLVM backend target for Intel GPU. I would start from targeting OpenCL language first. But I am not quite familiar with LLVM backend infrastructure. I have some problem on describing the RegisterInfo. Intel GPU launches lots of hardware threads to do GPGPU workload. Each hardware thread has 128 registers(r0-r127), with each one of size 32 byte. Each

Hi, first of all: thanks for your kind, very helpful and unbelievable fast response! >> as mentioned in an earlier post >> (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-July/051677.html) I >> am currently working on a Back-End for the TriCore processor. >> Currently, I am struggling as LLVM could not select zext and load, for >> instance, so some of the testcases

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 02:20:34 -0500 (CDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > > Also, the store into the arrays generates two x86 machine > > instructions: > > > > lea %ECX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 16] > > mov DWORD PTR [%ECX + <element offset>], %EAX > > > > These can be combined into a

What does MIOperandInfo exactly mean while defining an Operand class? e.g. here class X86MemOperand<string printMethod> : Operand<iPTR> { let PrintMethod = printMethod; let MIOperandInfo = (ops ptr_rc, i8imm, ptr_rc, i32imm); } -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I wrote a machinefunction pass to try to see what's going on. Does it mean that it is target machine dependent pass, like x86? However, after compile it, I found there wasnot command option I registered. I used regular way to do it like RegisterOpt <...> X("... ", "... "), but I cannot see the optimized option when I use opt -load ../../lib/Debug/libxxx.so

Hi, I have a simple question w.r.t the order of operands used in dag pattern matching in target files. Some of them seem intuitive. But I want to get it clarified anyway. I am using a pattern from X86InstrFMA.td in the below example. Consider FMA3 pattern (simplified). let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in { multiclass fma3s_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr, X86MemOperand

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote: > There seems to be a disadvantage to the approach of allocating all > locals on the stack using alloca. Consider the following code: There is nothing intrinsic in LLVM that prevents this from happening, we just have not yet implemented 'stack packing'. > We have two arrays, b and c, only one of which can exist at any given > time.

> -----Original Message----- > From: Fabian Scheler [mailto:fabian.scheler at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:58 AM > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List; Villmow, Micah > Cc: Stellard, Thomas; cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] More Back-End Porting Troubles > > Hi, > > first of all: thanks for your kind, very helpful and unbelievable

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jun, > > On 24 June 2014 08:08, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > > def LEA16r : I<0x8D, MRMSrcMem, > > (outs GR16:$dst), (ins i32mem:$src), > > "lea{w}\t{$src|$dst}, {$dst|$src}", [], IIC_LEA_16>, > >

There seems to be a disadvantage to the approach of allocating all locals on the stack using alloca. Consider the following code: extern void func(int*); extern int xyz(); void abc() { int a = xyz(); int i; { int b[10]; for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) b[i] = xyz(); func(b); } { int c[10]; for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) c[i] = xyz(); func(c); } func(&a); } We have two arrays,

On 16 November 2012 13:41, Anitha B Gollamudi <anitha.boyapati at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a simple question w.r.t the order of operands used in dag > pattern matching in target files. Some of them seem intuitive. But I > want to get it clarified anyway. I am using a pattern from > X86InstrFMA.td in the below example. Consider FMA3 pattern > (simplified). >