similar to: [LLVMdev] tblgen multiclasses

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

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > 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 instructions are implemented. I'm working

> > Basically, flag operands are a hack used to handle resources that > are not > > accurately modeled in the scheduler (e.g. condition codes, explicit > > register assignments, etc). The basic idea of the flag operand is > that > > they require the scheduler to keep the "flagged" nodes stuck > together in > > the output machine instructions. >

> Basically, flag operands are a hack used to handle resources that are not > accurately modeled in the scheduler (e.g. condition codes, explicit > register assignments, etc). The basic idea of the flag operand is that > they require the scheduler to keep the "flagged" nodes stuck together in > the output machine instructions. >From an user point of view, flags have

Hi, I'm now ready to implement the FP support for my embedded target. My target supports only f64 at the moment. Question: How can I tell LLVM that float is the same as double on my target? May be by assigning the same register class to both MVT::f32 and MVT::f64? But FP is supported only in the emulated mode, because the target does not have any hardware support for FP. Therefore each FP

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > I'm now ready to implement the FP support for my embedded target. cool. > My target supports only f64 at the moment. > Question: How can I tell LLVM that float is the same as double on my > target? May be by assigning the same register class to both MVT::f32 > and MVT::f64? Just don't assign a register class for the f32 type.

Hi, >> My target supports only f64 at the moment. >> Question: How can I tell LLVM that float is the same as double on my >> target? May be by assigning the same register class to both MVT::f32 ?> and MVT::f64? >Just don't assign a register class for the f32 type. This is what the >X86 backend does when it is in "floating point stack mode". This will

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: >>> such a call instruction? >> >> Why not just make the asm string be "call __fsub64"? > > Well, of course it would be the best solution. But the interesting part > is that I need to generate the machine code directly because for > different reasons use of a system assembler is not an option. As a ok. >

> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > >>> such a call instruction? > >> > >> Why not just make the asm string be "call __fsub64"? > > > > Well, of course it would be the best solution. But the interesting > part > > is that I need to generate the machine code directly because for > > different reasons use of a system

Bill, Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to reduce redundant code. For example: multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node> { def _i8 : Pat<(sub GPRI8:$src0, GPRI8:$src1), (ADD_i8 GPRI8:$src0, (NEGATE_i8 GPRI8:$src1))>; def _i32 : Pat<(sub

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 nearly-identical instructions. For example: let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in { multiclass

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Tom Stellard > Sent: 19 September 2014 01:36 > To: Sanjay Patel > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] predicates vs. requirements [TableGen, > X86InstrInfo.td] > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:25:07PM -0600, Sanjay Patel wrote: >

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Bill, > Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that > define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to > reduce redundant code. > For example: > multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node> > { > def _i8 : Pat<(sub

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

On Feb 19, 2009, at 8:26 PM, 任坤 wrote: > hi, Dear Evan Cheng: > > My cpu is i32 embeded CPU. I define pseudo register pair registers. > > In mytargetRegisterInfo.td: > def T0: RegisterWithSubRegs<"t0",[R0,R1]>; > ... > def GPR64 : RegisterClass<"mytarget", [i64], 64, [T0, T1.....] > > In mytargetISelLowering.cpp: > I define i1, i8 ,

I try to define a register class def GPR64 : RegisterClass<"mytarget", [i64], 64, [T0, T1.....] to simulate even/odd pair of GPR32 register. Actually, I just use GPR64 as a temporary register. My CPU just support i32 Integer type directly. I use FDR to save f64. def FDR : RegisterClass<"mytarget", [f64], 64,[FD0, FD1, ....] When I move f64 to even/odd pair register, I

Dear Evan Chang: I register incorrect Register class for MVT::f64. I have fixed it. Thanks your advice. "-view-legalize-dags" is very good option. But I don't know why my LLC do not know " -view-legalize-type-dags" option. By the way, I use llvm 2.5 merged from llvm2.4. Best Regards, Ren Kun --- 09年3月31日，周二, Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com> 写道： 发件人: Evan Cheng

hi, Dear Evan Cheng: My cpu is i32 embeded CPU. I define pseudo register pair registers. In mytargetRegisterInfo.td: def T0: RegisterWithSubRegs<"t0",[R0,R1]>; ... def GPR64 : RegisterClass<"mytarget", [i64], 64, [T0, T1.....] In mytargetISelLowering.cpp: I define i1, i8 , i16 and i32 are legal. 1. I still have problem. I save my function return double  value in

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: >> I don't understand. If you are writing out the .o file directly, you >> already know how to encode calls... can't you just encode it as the >> right sort of call? > > Yes, sure. I simply overlooked it, because it is too simple and obvious > ;) I was thinking about doing it at a higher level, but this can be >

On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > Hello, i've noticed a new possible missed optimization while testing more trivial code. > This time it's not a with a xor but with a multiplication instruction and the example is little bit more involved. > > C code: > > typedef short t; > t foo(t a, t b) > { > t a4 = a*b; > return a4; > } >