similar to: [LLVMdev] Intrinsics Change

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Manuel Jacob <me at manueljacob.de> wrote: > On 2018-05-16 00:34, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Vectorization goes overboard because the throughput cost model used by the >> vectorizers doesn't match the 6 IR instructions that correspond to 1 x86 >> rotate instruction. Instead, we have: >> >> [...] >>

LLVM appears to support Library functions for ISD::SRA ,ISD::SHL, and ISD::SRL, as they are properly defined in RuntimeLibCalls.def. The library functions defined in RuntimeLibCalls.def (among others) are these: HANDLE_LIBCALL(SRA_I16, "__ashrhi3") HANDLE_LIBCALL(SRA_I32, "__ashrsi3") HANDLE_LIBCALL(SRA_I64, "__ashrdi3") However, setting

Hi Eli, Thanks for pointing to the CTLZ_ZERO_UNDEF “LibCall” implementation. I have not it in the version that I am currently using, so it’s nice to know that it’s implemented now. Incidentally, the CTLZ… implementation is IDENTICAL to what I am proposing for the Shifts. This is not just adding support for “out-of-tree-targets”, but giving consistency to the fact that we have perfectly defined

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? >> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would >> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction

05.07.2020, 05:22, "Roman Lebedev" <lebedev.ri at gmail.com>: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 12:18 PM Shawn Landden via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>  Carry-less multiplication[1] instructions exist (at least optionally) on many architectures: armv8, RISC-V, x86_64, POWER, SPARC, C64x, and possibly more. >> >>  This proposal is to add a

Hi Eli, First of all, please I would appreciate that you try to not confuse my limited use of English with stupidity or lack or criteria in other subjects. I’m not English native, so please keep that in mind. You have been significantly helpful in the recent past so please keep on. Interestingly, you made a mention of a related but not identical issue. It is true that most (or all) processors

Hello, I am basically working on a static analysis project on LLVM IR, and the problem is that I will need to simulate the execution of a few LLVM Intrinsic, such as llvm.bswap.i160, and llvm.ctlz.i256. I am wondering if there has been some already implemented sample code, regarding these intrinsics? Either C or LLVM IR. Thanks a lot! Best, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Have you looked at these? https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html https://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:06 AM div code via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Of course, in this sense they are not platform-dependent. I just want to > write a semantics-correct version of such intrinsics and let my static > analyzer goes smoothly. > > On

On 15 Jan 2010, at 18:03, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:13 PM, David Conrad wrote: > >> Other targets that I know of that could potentially benefit from >> this optimization being global (that have a clz and bitreverse >> instruction but not ctz) are AVR32 and C64x, neither of which llvm >> has backends for yet. > > When/if another

<div> </div><div><div><p>Carry-less multiplication[1] instructions exist (at least optionally) on many architectures: armv8, RISC-V, x86_64, POWER, SPARC, C64x, and possibly more.</p><p>This proposal is to add a <code>llvm.clmul</code> instruction. Or if that is contentious, <code>llvm.experimental.bitmanip.clmul</code> instruction.

On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2010, at 18:03, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:13 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> >>> Other targets that I know of that could potentially benefit from >>> this optimization being global (that have a clz and bitreverse >>> instruction but not ctz) are AVR32 and C64x,

On Jan 15, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > >> >> On 15 Jan 2010, at 18:03, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >>> On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:13 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> >>>> Other targets that I know of that could potentially benefit from >>>> this optimization being

(As per IRC discussion) I understand that the carry-less multiplication algorithm has it's uses since/and it is implemented as an instruction in many architectures and that adding it as a general-purpose intrinsic will allow us to drop target-specific intrinsics as by-product. What i do *NOT* understand is: what is the actual/main goal/driving factor of adding an LLVM intrinsic for it? The

The LLVM 1.5 is out! Get it here: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/releases/ or read about it here: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/releases/1.5/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew This release adds several new major features to the LLVM compiler, allows it to be used in domains where it couldn't before (e.g. for functional languages), supports new targets, generates faster code, and is much easier to port

Hi Sanjoy, Responses inlined… > On May 8, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > [+CC Mehdi, Vedant for the auto upgrade issue] > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> **Method** >> >> Clearly we are going to have to teach

Hi all, Some non trivial legalization of operations which aren't supported by the backend would benefit from having the optimizer pass on them. I noticed some example trying to optimize various pieces of code over the past weeks. One offender is the cttz/ctlz intrinsic when defined on 0. On X86, BSR and NSF are undefined on 0, and only recent CPU have the LZCNT and TZCNT instructions that

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector > operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from > LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant > simplification.  There are still some issues with this patch, but does > the approach

I may be wrong here, but legalizing early seems like something that is more likely to prevent optimizations than it is to encourage them. But I guess I don't follow why things like TTI, TII and TLI queries don't suffice for this. CodeGenPrepare will break this sequence up. I would imagine that if the target returns false for isCheapToSpeculateCtlz() and false for canInsertSelect(), the

Hi, Following is excerpted from http://llvm.org/releases/3.1/docs/LangRef.html#int_ctpop. How come the return type needs to be consistent with parameter type? i64/i128 seems to be overkill, and i8, i16 are inconvenient. ----------------------------------- declare i8 @llvm.ctpop.i8(i8 <src>) declare i16 @llvm.ctpop.i16(i16 <src>) declare i32 @llvm.ctpop.i32(i32

Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant simplification. There are still some issues with this patch, but does the approach look sane? -Eli -------------- next part -------------- Index: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorOps.cpp