similar to: [LLVMdev] 16-bit target problem

> // If this is an integer return value, we need to promote it ourselves to > // the full width of a register, since getCopyToParts and Legalize will use > // ANY_EXTEND rather than sign/zero. > // FIXME: C calling convention requires the return type to be promoted to > // at least 32-bit. But this is not necessary for non-C calling conventions. > if

I'm hitting a problem in SelectionDAGBuild::visitRet(), mainly: MVT VT = ValueVTs[j]; // FIXME: C calling convention requires the return type to be promoted to // at least 32-bit. But this is not necessary for non-C calling // conventions. if (VT.isInteger()) { MVT MinVT = TLI.getRegisterType(MVT::i32); if (VT.bitsLT(MinVT)) VT = MinVT;

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 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 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

Hi. I am beginning to learn LLVM (using LLVM 2.3.0 on a Linux x86_64 machine) and wanted to check the status of the support of arbitrary size integers. To do so, I tried to modify the HowToUseJIT example by replacing the Int32Ty with another size (let's say 12 bits for the example). While it compiles ok, I get the following assert at run-time: HowToUseJIT: LegalizeDAG.cpp:4059:

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

Ok, It doesn't work. The problem is LLVM then asserts later on in SelectionDAG:2642 because it is checking to see whether the second operand is an Integer, and if not it assumes it is floating point and asserts with the method Cannot *_EXTEND_INREG FP types. So, it seems that the root problem here is the 'MVT::Other' still hanging around. How do I convert this SDValue to an int vector

In SelectionDAGBuilder::visitRet(), there is this bit of code: // FIXME: C calling convention requires the return type to be promoted // to at least 32-bit. But this is not necessary for non-C calling // conventions. The frontend should mark functions whose return values // require promoting with signext or zeroext attributes. if (ExtendKind !=

Eli, I think I was able to get it working. Thanks for the help, does this look correct to you? void DAGTypeLegalizer::SplitVecRes_SIGN_EXTEND_INREG(SDNode *N, SDValue &Lo, SDValue &Hi) { SDValue LHSLo, LHSHi; GetSplitVector(N->getOperand(0), LHSLo, LHSHi); DebugLoc dl = N->getDebugLoc(); EVT LoVT, HiVT;

Hello Dale, this is an updated version of the tail call optimization patch for powerpc. could you have a look at it? i added code to support ppc64 (untested, will try to get access to ppc64 on a friend's machine). incorporated evan's formatting suggestions. ;) will run another round of testing (llvm-test) on my powerpc g4/800 when i get the okay to commit. testing on this machine takes

Hi, I'm building a backend for a 64-bit target based on the existing Mips 32 one and I've come up against a problem with 32-bit loads. If you load a 32-bit value into a register this needs extending to fit into a native 64-bit register. The initial selection DAG acomplishes this using an any_extend node, which isn't handled later on by any instruction selector and thus LLVM

Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Greg, > >> 1) What causes the Initial selection DAG code to choose an any_extend >> over a sign_extend (or zero_extend)? > > because it is more efficient: the backend gets more choice in how to do > it, and at the same time it tells the optimizers that the extra bits > contain rubbish, which gives them more freedom to reason. Makes sense,

At the beginning, I have the following chain: LOAD -> TRUNCATE -> ZERO_EXTEND. After Combine(BeforeLegalizeTypes) the optimization of ZERO_EXTEND gives me the new chain LOAD -> ANY_EXTEND -> AND. I want to optimize ANY_EXTEND but is not analyzed in the same Combine(). Combine(AfterLegalizeTypes) is no called at all. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Eli Friedman

On Apr 16, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Hello Dale, > > this is an updated version of the tail call optimization patch for > powerpc. could you have a look at it? > > i added code to support ppc64 (untested, will try to get access to > ppc64 on a friend's machine). > incorporated evan's formatting suggestions. ;) > > will run another round

Hi Greg, > 1) What causes the Initial selection DAG code to choose an any_extend > over a sign_extend (or zero_extend)? because it is more efficient: the backend gets more choice in how to do it, and at the same time it tells the optimizers that the extra bits contain rubbish, which gives them more freedom to reason. > 2) What does any_extend actually signify? Presumably this

Hi Greg, >>> 1) What causes the Initial selection DAG code to choose an any_extend >>> over a sign_extend (or zero_extend)? >> >> because it is more efficient: the backend gets more choice in how to do >> it, and at the same time it tells the optimizers that the extra bits >> contain rubbish, which gives them more freedom to reason. > Makes sense,

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > More nitpicks: > ... > No need for else here. :-) Done > SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; > > Just change last statement to > int SPDiff = (int)... Done > > +bool > +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, > +

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > At the beginning, I have the following chain: LOAD -> TRUNCATE -> ZERO_EXTEND. > After Combine(BeforeLegalizeTypes) the optimization of ZERO_EXTEND  gives me the new chain LOAD -> ANY_EXTEND -> AND. > > I want to optimize ANY_EXTEND but is not analyzed in the same Combine().