similar to: [LLVMdev] Q about instruction pattern matching

On Sep 21, 2007, at 2:04 AM, Andreas Fredriksson wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying to describe the patterns for the m68k instructions ADD and > ADDA when used with a data register operand for the source. Basically, > ADD operates on anything but address registers and immediates, and > ADDA works on address registers only so I'm going to need both > instructions in my instruction

On Sep 24, 2007, at 1:12 AM, Andreas Fredriksson wrote: > On 9/24/07, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > >> I am going to suggest something shocking. :) Since you will end up >> writing a >> bunch of target specific code anyway, you might a well write a target >> specific pass that change generic instructions into data register >> variant

On 9/25/07, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi Evan, > > wouldn't this generate fairly terrible code if each address register > > use has to be preceded by instructions to make an address register > > hold the right value? > > No. I would suggest doing this as a instruction selection post pass. > It would operate on DAGs so you still get

Hi, I have a simple question w.r.t the order of operands used in dag pattern matching in target files. Some of them seem intuitive. But I want to get it clarified anyway. I am using a pattern from X86InstrFMA.td in the below example. Consider FMA3 pattern (simplified). let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in { multiclass fma3s_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr, X86MemOperand

On 16 November 2012 13:41, Anitha B Gollamudi <anitha.boyapati at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a simple question w.r.t the order of operands used in dag > pattern matching in target files. Some of them seem intuitive. But I > want to get it clarified anyway. I am using a pattern from > X86InstrFMA.td in the below example. Consider FMA3 pattern > (simplified). >

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 09:33, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic > > def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], > [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], > [IntrNoMem]>; > > that I want to translate to the

Hi Joe, Le 11/05/2012 02:13, Joe Matarazzo a écrit : > I've been unable to come up with the TableGen recipe to match a > negated operand. My target asm syntax allows the following transform: > > FNEG r8, r5 > MUL r6, r8, r9 > > to > > MUL r6, -r5, r9 > > Is there a Pattern<> syntax that would allow matching *any* opcode (or > even some

Hi, On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; that I want to translate to the following instruction during instruction selection: def divm16_pseudo : MyPseudoInst< (outs aNh_0_7:$dst, aNh_0_7:$dst2), (ins

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:15 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 09:33, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic >> >> def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], >> [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], >>

Hello, I'm new to LLVM and I'm using it to translate from LLVM to another language rather than emitting actual machine code. The target language has instructions that operate on pointers which aren't naturally exposed in LLVM. Here's what I've done to add pointer support for an instruction called PADD that takes a pointers and an offset and returns the new pointer value:

On 9/24/07, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > I am going to suggest something shocking. :) Since you will end up writing a > bunch of target specific code anyway, you might a well write a target > specific pass that change generic instructions into data register variant > ones when necessary. Hi Evan, wouldn't this generate fairly terrible code if each address

On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Christopher Lamb <christopher.lamb at gmail.com > wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Andreas Fredriksson wrote: > >> On 9/21/07, Christopher Lamb <christopher.lamb at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> ISel patterns are matched against DAGs before register allocation. >>> So you >>> are correct that ISel

Also some missing _src()s and cosmetic changes. --- src/gallium/programs/galliumut/Makefile | 5 + .../programs/galliumut/gen_uureg_opcodes.sh | 29 +++ src/gallium/programs/galliumut/uureg.h | 196 ++++---------------- 3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) create mode 100644 src/gallium/programs/galliumut/gen_uureg_opcodes.sh diff --git

Hi guys, When I am trying to define pattern in a multi class, I got something like this: “ multi class P_PAT<string sty, SDNode tNode> { def : Pat<( !cast<ValueType>(“v2” # sty) (tNode !cast<ValueType>(“v2” # sty):$src1, !cast<ValueType>(“v2” # sty):$src2) ), ( add !cast<ValueType>(“v2” # sty):$src1, !cast<ValueType>(“v2” #

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jakob Stoklund Olesen" <stoklund at 2pi.dk> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:26:25 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] Simpler types in TableGen isel patterns > > Currently, instruction selection patterns are defined like this: >

Is it legal to do something like a !strconcat on a non-string entity? That is, is there some operation that will let me do this (replace SOME_CONCAT with an appropriate operator): (WARNING! Hacked-up tablegen ahead!) multiclass sse_fp_binop_bitwise_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr, SDNode OpNode> { // Vector operation emulating scalar (fp)

Are there any other patterns in your TD file? If so, then one of the ones before this pattern will match everything, and this pattern will never be matched. -bw On Jul 3, 2009, at 8:27 PM, Javier Martinez wrote: > Hello, > > I'm new to LLVM and I'm using it to translate from LLVM to another > language rather than emitting actual machine code. The target language > has

I've been unable to come up with the TableGen recipe to match a negated operand. My target asm syntax allows the following transform: FNEG r8, r5 MUL r6, r8, r9 to MUL r6, -r5, r9 Is there a Pattern<> syntax that would allow matching *any* opcode (or even some subset), not just MUL, with a FNEG'd operand? I expect I can define a PatFrag: def fneg_su : PatFrag<(ops

Thank You. But can we use same register class for fadd as well, is this instruction correct? def VFADD : I<0x0E, MRMDestReg, (outs VRR128:$dst), (ins VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2),"VFADD\t{$src1, $src2, $dst|$dst, $src1, $src2}", [(set VRR128:$dst, (fadd VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2))]>, TA; On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: >

The IMM3/IMM5 come from here X86RecognizableInstr.cpp 943 TYPE("SSECC", TYPE_IMM3) 944: TYPE("AVXCC", TYPE_IMM5) On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> hi, >> >> some instructions