similar to: [LLVMdev] Custom GEP lowering

On Aug 28, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 07:26:55PM -0700, Scott Michel wrote: >> It looks like I need to be able to intercept GEP lowering (in >> SelectionDAGLowering::visitGetElementPtr) and insert something else >> other than the shifts and adds. The basic problem is that CellSPU >> loads and stores on 16-byte boundaries. Consequently,

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 07:26:55PM -0700, Scott Michel wrote: > It looks like I need to be able to intercept GEP lowering (in > SelectionDAGLowering::visitGetElementPtr) and insert something else > other than the shifts and adds. The basic problem is that CellSPU > loads and stores on 16-byte boundaries. Consequently, the SPU backend > has to do the load or store differently

On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:15 PM, Scott Michel wrote: > On Aug 28, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Dan Gohman wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 07:26:55PM -0700, Scott Michel wrote: >>> It looks like I need to be able to intercept GEP lowering (in >>> SelectionDAGLowering::visitGetElementPtr) and insert something else >>> other than the shifts and adds. The basic problem is

I have a platform that I am targeting that has 64-bit general purpose registers but uses 32-bit pointers (ie, sizeof(void*) == 4) but unfortunately it also requires that the top 32-bits of the pointer value be clear. This sometimes becomes a problem with certain pointer calculations such as using a 32-bit negative value for indexing into an array can cause the upper bits to be set, generating

Yes, it was I who put that rant in the commit log and it's justified. Worse, it's unreasonable to actually go through all of DAGCombiner's code and check to see if certain kinds of constants, e.g., i64, are legal during a particular phase of DAGCombiner. DAGCombiner does good work and the backends are supposed to be good citizens. CellSPU is certainly trying to be a good citizen, no

Hi, I'm yet working on the LLVM ExecutionEngine portability (2.6 release version) and I get two different problems depending on the platform. The first problem concerns compilation on MacOs X (10.5.5) with an X86 processor, when trying to compile my own project containing the ExecutionEngine class and the linker class. I get links problem with "_ffi_type_sint16",

Hello > Is there additionnals information to provide to the linker when > compiling llvm on mac os x? Do you have libffi installed somehere? > > > The second question concerns Yellow Dog Distribution(6.2) on CellSPU > processor. Does lli support JIT compilation on CELL? No. As far as I can see, there is no JIT for SPU. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of

Hi Scott, I'm not clear on what you're saying here; some of your points below seem to be contradictory. The advice to use target-independent nodes when feasible seems sound to me, so I wrote up a comment about it in SelectionDAGNodes.h. If you can formulate your thoughts in the form of specific documentation changes, that would be helpful. In theory, DAGCombiner is supposed to check if

Hi! I want to write a LLVM back-end for a bit addressing target architecture. http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#i-m-writing-a-backend-for-a-target-which-needs-custom-lowering-for-gep-how-do-i-do-this states quite clearly that some additional work must be done for this sort of architecture. Is this still true? Is there a project/branch to make it more flexible? Support for any memory

Hello all, currently the SPU backend does not handle big stack frames (>16*511 bytes) nicely. llc asserts on malformed machine instructions. (Assertion `MI->getOperand(OpNo).isImm() && "printDFormAddr first operand is not immediate") E.g. the function: define i32 @foo() nounwind { entry: %retval = alloca i32 %big_data = alloca [1000 x i32] store i32 3840, i32*

Jerome: No, there are no plans to JIT to SPU. That's considerably more complicated -- you'd have to figure out when to JIT to the SPU and live with all of the constraints that the SPU imposes (data reformatting, r/w DMA, ensure your code lives in 256K unless you can manage to interface with the virtual I-cache work.) Basically, it's not trivial and it doesn't quite fit into the

Yup, I've got one remaining bug that holding up the CellSPU release. It still has a bunch of warts, but so long as I can get it into shape such that llvm-gcc-4.2 compiles all the way through, then we collectively have something with which to work. I'm getting the following error from llc, the attachments have llc's debug and the .ll files, respectively. Can anyone shed some

Hi, attached is a second try for the bigstack patch for SPU, with testcase. It is essentially the patch committed as 97091, and reverted as 97099, but with the following additions: -in vararg handling, registers are marked to be live, to not confuse the register scavenger -function prologue and epilogue are not emitted, if the stack size is 16. 16 means it is empty - there is only the

On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Kalle.Raiskila at nokia.com wrote: > Hello all, > > currently the SPU backend does not handle big stack frames (>16*511 > bytes) nicely. llc asserts on malformed machine instructions. > (Assertion `MI->getOperand(OpNo).isImm() && "printDFormAddr first > operand is not immediate") Sounds fine to me in general. Please write a

This is a scheduler assertion. It means a value (virtual register) use is somehow scheduled before its definition. Please run llc in gdb. Call dumpSchedule() to print out the schedule. Also please let me know which node it is processing at the time of the assertion. Evan On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Scott Michel <scottm at aero.org> wrote: > Yup, I've got one remaining bug

Chris Lattner skrev: > On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Kalle.Raiskila at nokia.com wrote: >> currently the SPU backend does not handle big stack frames (>16*511 >> bytes) nicely. llc asserts on malformed machine instructions. >> (Assertion `MI->getOperand(OpNo).isImm() && "printDFormAddr first >> operand is not immediate") > > Sounds fine

Thank very much for this answer, so my last question will be: is it possible to use the LLVM JIT on a PS3 with Yellow Dog 6.2 distribution, instead of the LLVM interpreter, by using the PPE as it seems to be similar to 64-bit PowerPC processors? 2009/12/18 Scott Michel <scooter.phd at gmail.com> > Jerome: > > No, there are no plans to JIT to SPU. That's considerably more

In -help output, -help - Display available options (--help-hidden for more) Both single and double - option markers are accepted, which is good. It would probably be better to refer to options consistently using the single marker in all cases. =linearscan - linear scan register allocator =pbqp - PBQP

On Mar 29, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Kalle Raiskila wrote: > attached is a second try for the bigstack patch for SPU, with testcase. It is essentially the patch committed as 97091, and reverted as 97099, but with the following additions: > -in vararg handling, registers are marked to be live, to not confuse the register scavenger Looks good. You can try running with -verify-machineinstrs to detect

No, I wasn't having a management lobotomy moment. If the target's registers have no subregisters, SubUsed is false and the assert gets tripped. Ok, back to the original question: What was the original intent in this code (lines 186-193 in lib/CodeGen/RegisterScavenging.cpp)? -scooter On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Scott Michel <scooter.phd at gmail.com> wrote: > Ugh.