similar to: [LLVMdev] using the constant pool during select

Sorry, forgot to Reply-All. Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Montgomery <stephen.montgomery3 at btinternet.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Prevention register promotion at the isel codegen phase > Date: 24 November 2012 17:09:58 GMT > To: Joseph Pusdesris <joe at pusdesris.com> > > I had a similar problem trying to implement reg-mem operations. The solution I

Yes, this is very helpful! Thank you! How does this work when exiting a variable's liveness range? Will it automatically know to free the stack slot for reuse? -Joe On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Steve Montgomery < stephen.montgomery3 at btinternet.com> wrote: > Sorry, forgot to Reply-All. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Steve Montgomery

Hi list: I have been trying to get my feet wet with the ARM backend. As a warmup exercise I wanted to be able to move jumptables especially large ones out of the code section. Currently the idiom for jump tables loooks like this // .set PCRELV0, (.LJTI9_0_0-(.LPCRELL0+8)) // .LPCRELL0: // add r3, pc, #PCRELV0 // ldr pc, [r3, +r0, lsl #2] // .LJTI9_0_0: //

Hey, I wanted to add an intrinsics to read MSRs. So I added the intrinsics and lowered it to a new ISD node I created ISD::RDMSR, its first operand is the MSR id. I added a case in X86DAGToDAGISel::Select for ISD::RDMSR. Now I know rdmsr works like so: mov r/ecx, <id> rdmsr r/eax holds the lower 32/64 bit >From what I understood this needs a Token Factor node, nodes which are

Hello, I did a little experiment modifying LLVM to be able to use alias-analysis information in scheduling so that independent memory operations may be reordered. Attached is a patch which implements this. I copied some routines from DAGCombiner.cpp for using SDOperands with alias queries; it should probably be factored out somewhere so the code can be shared. I reorganized

Hi, Joseph, I guess getLoad() will either search an existed SDValue *OR* create a new one for a non-existed one depending on real parameters. Since you use exactly the same attributes dupVal/dupNode have, no doubt getLoad() return the old one. I am not sure it's *volatile* that let you get a new result, you might want to try change some other parameters and check what it turns out. Regards.

Dan Gohman wrote: > There certainly are wishlist items for TableGen and TableGen-based > instruction descriptions, though I don't know of an official list. > Offhand, > a few things that come to mind are the ability to handle nodes with > multiple results, Is there an official workaround, BTW? - Volodya

So I think I have made some progress. SDValue dupVal = consumer->getOperand(OpNo); LoadSDNode *dupNode = (LoadSDNode*) dupVal.getNode(); SDValue newLoad = CurDAG->getLoad(dupVal.getValueType(), dupVal.getDebugLoc(), dupVal.getOperand(0), dupVal.getOperand(1), dupNode->getPointerInfo(),

Yes, changing parameters will create a new Node, but is there some way I can force a new node with the same parameters? -Joe On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Triple Yang <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Joseph, I guess getLoad() will either search an existed SDValue > *OR* create a new one for a non-existed one depending on real > parameters. > > Since you use

Hello all, I recently foudn myself wanting to view the basic blocks in the selection DAG as pure DAGs - so just as a list of edges, with no other information. I added the below code to the start of the " void SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG()" function. It creates a separate txt file for each basic block and gives a list of edges between nodes. The segment of code is below -

Hi, Joe. I am sorry I did not catch your point. Can you provide more details? Since SDValue/SDNode can be used multiple times, why would you want to create two identical objects instead of reference to the same one? 2012/12/2 Joseph Pusdesris <joe at pusdesris.com>: > Yes, changing parameters will create a new Node, but is there some way I can > force a new node with the same

2008/2/15, Andreas Fredriksson <deplinenoise at gmail.com>: > > I tried mocking this up using the following. (Base is what's returned as > the Ax in the move expression above when the DAG is constructed due to > SelectAddr().) > > SDOperand chain = CurDAG->getCopyToReg(Base, M68K::A3, Base); > Base = CurDAG->getCopyFromReg(chain, M68K::A3, MVT::i32);

Hi, I'm trying to build code for very short function and I encounter with a problem (or bug) in DAG selection algotithm. I have a node that was created in Combine(BeforeLegalizeTypes) and should be optimized in Combine(AfterLegalizeTypes). But LegalizeTypes() did not change anything and Combine(AfterLegalizeTypes) was not called. Vector legalization that comes afterwards just scalarized the

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

Hello. I generated in the back end by hand (in C++ code, not with TableGen) some fancy assembly code using Inline ASM expressions and if I use 2 functions in my source code (but NOT just 1 function; I will not present the functions, but each requires me to generate an Inline ASM expression) I get this error at compilation (at scheduling): BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry

Hi again, I'm finally getting some time to work on my m68k backend again. :) I was trying to solve the problem that loads from arbitrary addresses need to go through address registers. 68k allows flexible addressing similar to what the x86 can do, only that the adressing base has to reside in an address register: move.size[b/w/l] <Displacement>(Ax, Dx * Scale[1/2/4/8]), <Dest>

>>Note that the isCommutable flag is only really useful for two-address instructions. If the two inputs are not constrained, nothing is really won by swapping them. Ahh i see, good to know that. >> Does the -view-*-dags output look correct? They do look correct, there are three Xmul_lohi blocks, one returns the low part copied into R14 and the rest of combinations get added and merged

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

Hi, During instruction selection, I have the following code for certain LOAD instructions: const LoadSDNode *LD = cast<LoadSDNode>(N); SDNode* LDW = CurDAG->getMachineNode(AVR::LDWRdPtr, SDLoc(N), VT, PtrVT, MVT::Other, LD->getBasePtr(), LD->getChain()); // Honestly, I have no idea what this does, but other memory // accessing instructions

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to build code for very short function and I encounter with a problem (or bug) in DAG selection algotithm. > I have a node that was created in Combine(BeforeLegalizeTypes) and should be optimized in Combine(AfterLegalizeTypes). But LegalizeTypes() did not change