similar to: [LLVMdev] Exapnding add:i32 assertion failure with 2.2

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

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > 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

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

On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman > <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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

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 > and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you > anticipating something more

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:41:38PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: > The "make check" produced: > === Summary === > > # of expected passes 2209 > # of unexpected failures 41 > # of expected failures 5 > gmake[1]: *** [check-local] Error 1 > gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/home/emil/ll/objdir-llvm/test' > gmake: ***

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 08:36:39PM +0400, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Emil, > > > # of expected passes 2243 > > # of unexpected failures 7 > > # of expected failures 5 > > Could you please provide a log here? It's interesting to see, what is > failing now. Sure: http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/llvm2.1-check-armfix.txt I think

On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 08:53 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Oct 2, 2008, at 2:01 AM, sanjiv gupta wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> So you have a i16 register

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:24:12PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: > http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/llvm2.1-check-debug.txt Here's an ARM test that cores: $ llvm-as < /home/emil/ll/llvm-2.1/test/CodeGen/ARM/2007-01-19-InfiniteLoop.ll | llc -march=arm -mattr=+v6,+vfp2 Segmentation fault (core dumped) $ gdb `which llc` llc.core [...] (gdb) where #0 0x0853d606 in

On Oct 2, 2008, at 10:11 AM, sanjiv gupta wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 08:53 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Oct 2, 2008, at 2:01 AM, sanjiv gupta wrote: >>>>

> >>>> You can try just marking all i16 operations, other than load and > >>>> store, as "expand". Would that work? > >>> > >>> Won't work; LLVM expects at least some basic operations, like add, > >>> to > >>> be legal in legal register types. > >> > >> That sounds like a bug, not a

Emil, > # of expected passes 2243 > # of unexpected failures 7 > # of expected failures 5 Could you please provide a log here? It's interesting to see, what is failing now. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

Hi, I'm working on an LLVM backend for an architecture which does not natively support half-word loads. I'm having trouble getting LLVM to promote i16 to i32 loads for me - should I expect LLVM to be able to do this, are do I have to write a custom lowerer? This post (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-February/019929.html) gave me the impression that it should be possible,

On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> On Oct 2, 2008, at 2:01 AM, sanjiv gupta wrote: >> >>> >>>> >>>> So you have a i16 register class which makes the type legal. You >>>> can >>>> make loads and stores legal

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2008, at 2:01 AM, sanjiv gupta wrote: > >> >>> >>> So you have a i16 register class which makes the type legal. You can >>> make loads and stores legal (can you?). But you will have to custom >>> lower all other i16 operations. This will work, but it

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:09:58PM -0400, Francois Pichet wrote: > On my target store/load of f32 or i32 are equivalents. > Previously I had duplicate instructions def in .td to map f32 and i32 to > the same opcode. > > I deleted all that and I instead tried a new approach (to simplify things) : > > setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::f32, Promote); >

On my target store/load of f32 or i32 are equivalents. Previously I had duplicate instructions def in .td to map f32 and i32 to the same opcode. I deleted all that and I instead tried a new approach (to simplify things) : setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::f32, Promote); AddPromotedToType(ISD::STORE, MVT::f32, MVT::i32); setOperationAction(ISD::LOAD, MVT::f32, Promote);

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:09:58PM -0400, Francois Pichet wrote: > > On my target store/load of f32 or i32 are equivalents. > > Previously I had duplicate instructions def in .td to map f32 and i32 to > > the same opcode. > > > > I deleted all that and I instead tried a new approach

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

Hi, I am trying to use the viewGraph() method of SelectionDAG, of course I installed graghviz, nuked my build directory, reconfigured and rebuilt the project. However, gdb does not consistently recognize SelectionDAG::viewgraph(), some times it finds it and some times it says that llvm::SelectionDAG does not have viewGraph(). It worked for couple of instances when I was in my modules but when for