similar to: [LLVMdev] Adding custom operation intrinsic for ASIP architectures.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: > I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation > support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best > way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization > pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics > (similar to raising mallocs). >

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: >> I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation >> support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best >> way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization >> pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics

> From: Mikael Lepist? <mikael.lepisto at tut.fi> > > Hi, Hi Mikael > I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation > support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best > way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization > pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics > (similar

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, [UTF-8] Mikael Lepist? wrote: >> def MOVNTPSmr : PSI<0x2B, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins i128mem:$dst, >> VR128:$src), >> "movntps {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", >> [(int_x86_sse_movnt_ps addr:$dst, VR128:$src)]>; >> >> There is corresponding code in llvm-gcc to tell GCC how to handle this >> builtin. Is this what you're

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, [UTF-8] Mikael Lepist? wrote: > >>> def MOVNTPSmr : PSI<0x2B, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins i128mem:$dst, >>> VR128:$src), >>> "movntps {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", >>> [(int_x86_sse_movnt_ps addr:$dst, VR128:$src)]>; >>> >>> There is corresponding code in llvm-gcc to tell GCC how to

On May 22, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Louis Gerbarg <lgg at apple.com> wrote: > The problem that the above transform is technically illegal because “When indexing into a (optionally packed) structure, only i32 integer constants are allowed (when using a vector of indices they must all be the same

Hello, I want to compile a LLVM file into an executable running on ARM platform. I use LLVM 2.0 with the following command lines: llvm-as -f -o test.bc test.ll llc -march=arm -mcpu=arm1136j-s -mattr=+v6 -f -o test.s test.bc arm-linux-gnu-as -mcpu=arm1136j-s test.s With the last command, I obtain the following error: rd and rm should be different in mul The bad instruction is

Recently I posted a patch to migrate certain GEPs between basic blocks in cases where doing so would improve the ability of instcombine to merge into more complicated addressing mode (r209049 and r209065). After some build to failures it was rolled back. I now have a patch that no longer causes the regressions I was seeing, but it also no longer can optimize the case I was trying to optimize. As

Hi Mikael, You are obtaining warning, not an error, right? The most arm cores, including arm1136, can execute mul with rd = rm. So, you can ignore this warning. Lauro 2007/6/12, Peltier, Mikael <m-peltier at ti.com>: > > > > > Hello, > > > > I want to compile a LLVM file into an executable running on ARM platform. > > I use LLVM 2.0 with the following

Hi, I've been hitting my head to wall two days now. This is practically my first contact with InstrInfo.td files. Is there any tutorial how to make this kind of stuff? Or should I just keep on studying Sparc and other backends? So I added new intrinsic to llvm/include/llvm/TCEInstrinsics.td: def int_tce_customop : Intrinsic<[llvm_void_ty, llvm_ptr_ty, llvm_vararg_ty], [],

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Louis Gerbarg" <lgg at apple.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 7:09:49 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Indexing of structs vs arrays in getelementpointer > > > > >

Dear all, I would have a proposal for adding a project to the page http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/. We successfully use LLVM as a base for a retargetable compiler and below is some information on the project. If you would have any comments, questions or if we should improve the text below, please let me know. --- Codasip Studio By Codasip Ltd. (link https://www.codasip.com/) Codasip

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Arushi, > > > %tmp63 = call %struct.TypHeader* (...)* bitcast (%struct.TypHeader* >> (%struct.TypHeader*, i64, i64)* @Cyclotomic to %struct.TypHeader* >> (...)*)(%struct.TypHeader* %tmp62, i64 %tmp24, i32 1) nounwind, !dbg !907 >> ; >> <%struct.TypHeader*> [#uses=1]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 January 2015 at 20:43, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> > wrote: > > Last time we brought this up, there was only partial consensus, and then > > someone arbitrarily declared total consensus (without compelling > arguments > > in any particular direction)

%tmp63 = call %struct.TypHeader* (...)* bitcast (%struct.TypHeader* (%struct.TypHeader*, i64, i64)* @Cyclotomic to %struct.TypHeader* (...)*)(%struct.TypHeader* %tmp62, i64 %tmp24, i32 1) nounwind, !dbg !907 ; <%struct.TypHeader*> [#uses=1] the 3rd parameter is now used in an srem statement. How do we know what value is used? Does this use decide whether the value is sign extended or zero

I'm attempting to modify a parser generator to emit LLVM code instead of C. So far the experience has been trivial, but I am now running into an error regarding labels that I can't seem to solve. Situation 1: A label is used immediately after a void function call (l6 in this case): <snip> %tmp26 = load i32* @yybegin, align 4 %tmp27 = load i32* @yyend, align 4 call void

Hello, I upgraded to llvm 2.8 and when I generate *.ll files from C/C++ with clang -S -emit-llvm I obtain a *.ll file in which instructions and basicblocks have no names. I tried as well compiling with the -g option, but no names were given. In the release notes it is indicated to use "--show-annotations" to print the number of uses. Is there something similar for assigning names to

> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of JF Bastien via [..] > Is it relevant to any modern compiler though? > > I strongly agree with Tim. As I said in previous threads, unless people will have > actual testable targets for this type of thing, I think we shouldn’t add > maintenance burden. This isn’t really C or C++ anymore because so much code

Hi Arushi, > %tmp63 = call %struct.TypHeader* (...)* bitcast (%struct.TypHeader* > (%struct.TypHeader*, i64, i64)* @Cyclotomic to %struct.TypHeader* > (...)*)(%struct.TypHeader* %tmp62, i64 %tmp24, i32 1) nounwind, !dbg !907 ; > <%struct.TypHeader*> [#uses=1] > > the 3rd parameter is now used in an srem statement. How do we know what value is > used? Does this use

>> While testing my compiler on win32 in JIT mode, I ran into a couple of >> issues: >> >> 1. I linked the compiler with the lib files resulting from the cmake >> created VS.NET build. While everything built just fine, the >> ExecutionEngine::create call always returned NULL. The fix was to also >> link with JIT.obj (thanks aKor for pointing me in the