similar to: [LLVMdev] New tblgen feature

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. > Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, > to save some time. Ok. Note that the X86 backend is one of the most complex though, because it supports several subtargets and ABIs, which makes it more complex than some other targets. >

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for your answer! Chris Lattner wrote: >> 1. Why does X86 instruction set description provide different >> descriptions for the same instructions, which differ only in the size >> of operands? >> E.g. >> >> def MOV8rm : I<0x8A, MRMSrcMem, (ops GR8 :$dst, i8mem :$src), >> "mov{b} {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}",

I believe multiclasses can be nested. Could that help you reduce the duplication? --Sean Silva On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > That is what I currently have, I'm trying to simplify them even further since my multiclass file is enormous because of the amount of combinations. I have things like this: > > multiclass

That is what I currently have, I'm trying to simplify them even further since my multiclass file is enormous because of the amount of combinations. I have things like this: multiclass instmcRegImm<...> { def rr: inst<...>; def ri: inst<...>; def ir: inst<...>; def ii: inst<...>; } multiclass instmc<...> { defm i8 : instmcRegImm<...>; ^-- repeat for 15

I want to generate Haskell bindings to LLVM intrinsics. In a first attempt I wrote a little parser that reads IntrinsicsX86.td and outputs a Haskell module. E.g. the definition def int_x86_avx_max_ps_256 : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_maxps256">, Intrinsic<[llvm_v8f32_ty], [llvm_v8f32_ty, llvm_v8f32_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; is turned into

I think a multiclass may be a better fit for what you are trying to do. In fact, this is the canonical example for multiclasses: <http://llvm.org/docs/TableGenFundamentals.html#multiclass-definitions-and-instances>. --Sean Silva On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I’m trying to find examples of the foreach pattern being used in

On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: >> I don't understand what you're saying. Are you proposing that all properties (may load, store, side effects) be explicitly added to all instructions, and the pattern only be used to produce warnings? > > Yes. > > The side effect inference is worse than the load/store inference, but

Hi Jakob and David, The for-loop inside multiclass definition does not have to add extra abstraction layer. As in the pseudo codes that David wrote earlier (see below), it only condenses the repetitive 'def' statements inside the multiclass definition into a more compact and less copy-paste style form, instead of encapsulating them somewhere outside the multiclass definition. I believe

Concerning the RecordKeeper reference in Record. Would you prefer to partially go back to a more limited constrained version of a global. Since we are not threaded anyway, we could turn the reference into a singleton for the duration of an initial parse and use session. The concept would be to instead make the reference a static pointer, make RecordKeeper a friend of Record, and add

Hi Everyone, After some more thoughts to the Jacob's suggestion of using multiclasses for Opcode mapping, this is what I have come up with. Please take a look at the design below and let me know if you have any suggestions/questions. I have tried to keep the design target independent so that other targets could benefit from it. 1) The idea is to add 3 new classes into

Hi Chris, Thanks for this info. This provides even better and more advanced examples of multiclass usage! But your previous explanations were so good that I implemented in my backend last week almost the same that you've done now in the X86InstrSSE.td. I even introduced isCommutable parameter to indicate this property, just as you did. So, by now integer arithmetic and general purpose

Hi Chris, Thanks for the review! I believe I caught most of the syntax style issues with the attached patch. It only contains these style changes. On Dec 12, 2010, at 19:30, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Garrison Venn wrote: > >> >> Hey Chris, >> >> The following patch removes all global references to a RecordKeeper instance for the

Hi LLVMers, I found a bug in TGParser that is causing llvm-tblgen to crash on bad input. The reduced testcase is attached. The output follows: $ ./llvm-tblgen --version Low Level Virtual Machine (http://llvm.org/): LLVM version 3.1svn DEBUG build with assertions. Built Jan 20 2012 (15:46:08). Default target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.2.0 Host CPU: penryn $ ./llvm-tblgen bug.td 0

On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > >> All, >> >> TableGen likes to infer the MCID::UnmodeledSideEffects flag from an instruction's pattern. When an instruction doesn't have a pattern, it is assumed to have side effects. >

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}

The attached patch removes Record::createRecord(...) and its uses from trunk, and includes previous code style fixes. On Dec 12, 2010, at 21:52, Garrison Venn wrote: > ... > >> >> Another random question: why is createRecord better than using "new Record"? If createRecord is better, it would be good to make the Record ctor private so the code doesn't evolve

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: >>> Wouldn't it be possible and even more clean to have just one >>> description like (I use a pseudo-description here): >>> >>> def MOVrr : I<0x88, MRMDestReg, (ops (GR8|GR16|GR32) :$dst, >>> (i8mem|i16mem|i32mem):$src), >>> "mov{b} {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", []>,

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 > >

On Apr 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, David Greene wrote: > Here's the big RFC. > > A I've gone through and designed patterns for AVX, I quickly > realized that the > existing SSE pattern specification, while functional, is less than > ideal in > terms of maintenance. In particular, a number of nearly-identical > patterns > are specified all over for

Thanks again Elior, Yes, I tried using '!if', etc. but I just get type mismatches for the initializer (int) - probably something daft I'm doing :-( MartinO -----Original Message----- From: Malul, Elior [mailto:elior.malul at intel.com] Sent: 29 September 2013 09:19 To: Martin.ORiordan at movidius.com; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Tblgen and computed expressions