similar to: [LLVMdev] Reference Manual Clarifications

Hi, Consider the following test case: int foo(float *A, float *B, float *C, int len, int VSMALL) { for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) if (C[i] > VSMALL) A[i] = B[i] / C[i]; } In this test the div operation is conditional but llvm is generating unconditional div for this case: vector.body: ; preds = %vector.body, %vector.ph %index = phi i64 [

add object rules so that the division, remainder and friends get really build on sparc, patch from Fabio M. Di Nitto <fabbione@ubuntu.com>. reworked to apply on latest git tree. Signed-off-by: maximilian attems <maks@sternwelten.at> --- Has been since long in the Debian and Ubuntu klibc. diff --git a/klibc/arch/sparc/Makefile.inc b/klibc/arch/sparc/Makefile.inc index

Here is a patch containing all but one of the changes. I realized that the remainder/modulo discussion does indeed belongs to the srem instruction. The semantics of urem are obvious and need no further clarification. Best Regards, Jon 1572,1573c1572,1575 < notation (see below). Floating point constants must have a <a < href="#t_floating">floating point</a>

Hi Jon, Please you'll want to submit patches as unified diffs and as attachments. I notice you're using Thunderbird, so I refer you to this tip: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-January/011992.html Although this note doesn't apply to how you included your original patch (looks like you pasted it in), Thunderbird has default attachment handling settings which

Hi LLVM, This is my idea I had some time ago, when I realized that LLVM did not support legalization of some arithmetic instructions like mul i256. I have implemented very simple and limited version of that in my project. Is it something LLVM users would appreciate? 1. The pass transforms IR and is meant to be run before CodeGen (after IR optimizations). 2. The pass replaces

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 12:29 PM Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > > It's not correct (output of Alive2): > > define half @fn(half %a) { > %b = fadd half %a, undef > ret half %b > } > => > define half @fn(half %a) { > ret half undef > } > Transformation doesn't verify! > ERROR: Value mismatch > > Example: > half %a

Hi all, I'm trying to implement llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC. I've modelled my patch (attached) on the implementation in X86, but when I try and compile my test file (also attached) with llc I get the error "Cannot yet select: 0x10fa4ad0: ch = MemBarrier 0x10fa4828, 0x10fa4c68, 0x10fa4be0, 0x10fa4be0, 0x10fa4be0, 0x10fa4be0". This presumably means my "membarrier"

No, I don't. Cheers, Gary Dale Johannesen wrote: > This looks OK to check in, do you have write access? > > On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:38 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote: > > >Dale Johannesen wrote: > >>On Aug 19, 2008, at 7:18 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote: > >>>I'm trying to implement llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC. I've > >>>modelled my patch

I came across this comment in SelectionDAG.cpp: case ISD::FADD: case ISD::FSUB: case ISD::FMUL: case ISD::FDIV: case ISD::FREM: // If both operands are undef, the result is undef. If 1 operand is undef, // the result is NaN. This should match the behavior of the IR optimizer. That isn't intuitive to me. I would have expected a binary FP operation with one undef operand to

Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Aug 19, 2008, at 7:18 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote: > > I'm trying to implement llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC. I've > > modelled my patch (attached) on the implementation in X86, but > > when I try and compile my test file (also attached) with llc I > > get the error "Cannot yet select: 0x10fa4ad0: ch = MemBarrier > >

Hi Russell- The PIC16 is an 8-bit target, and the msp430 is a 16-bit target. The rules about the largest supported integer no longer apply as much- for most operations, codegen can now handle arbitrary precision (exceptions: mul, udiv, urem, sdiv, srem). For those five, library calls should be emitted for big integers - best way to check if they're supported is to just try them :) Alastair

Hi, I’d like to propose to extend LLVM IR intrinsics set, adding new ones for safe-division. There are intrinsics for detecting overflow errors, like sadd.with.overflow, and the intrinsics I’m proposing will augment this set. The new intrinsics will return a structure with two elements according to the following rules: safe.[us]div(x,0) = safe.[us]rem(x,0) = {0, 1} safe.sdiv(min<T>, -1) =

Hello, I want to know, if I can always assume that when I do unsigned operations like udiv, urem I will get the both operands converted to unsigned values? with under optimized version of code I sometimes receive these lines: unsigned a = 123; int b = -2; int c = a / b; -> %1 = udiv i32 123, -2 and get the result 0. Will it always be zero? or is it undefined?

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 4/24/2012 1:50 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > Hi LLVMers, > > We at NVIDIA would like to contribute back to the LLVM open-source > community by up-streaming the NVPTX back-end for LLVM. This back-end > is based on the sources used by NVIDIA, and currently provides > significantly more functionality than the current PTX back-end. Some > functionality is currently

On April 25, 2014 at 9:52:35 AM, Eric Christopher (echristo at gmail.com) wrote: Hi Michael, > I’d like to propose to extend LLVM IR intrinsics set, adding new ones for > safe-division. There are intrinsics for detecting overflow errors, like > sadd.with.overflow, and the intrinsics I’m proposing will augment this set. > > The new intrinsics will return a structure with two

Does LLVM support any target platforms on which the natural integer size/pointer size is smaller than 32 bits? For example, I noticed mention of PIC16, is that such a platform? If so, does the usual rule about the largest supported integer being the size of two pointers still apply? So that on that platform you can't use 64-bit integers, but you can use 32-bit integers?

Hi All, Here's the first draft of the release announcement for LLVM 1.9 that I'm working on. I'm sure I've forgotten and overlooked something, if so, please let me know! ----- 8< ------ 8< ----- <notes> Note: LLVM now correctly builds itself and passes all regression tests on Darwin X86 and Darwin PPC. No one has tried other targets to my knowledge. We hit

OK, I've checked it in for you, thanks. Please do contact Chris about write access. On Aug 22, 2008, at 12:38 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote: > No, I don't. > > Cheers, > Gary > > Dale Johannesen wrote: >> This looks OK to check in, do you have write access? >> >> On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:38 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote: >> >>> Dale Johannesen

On Aug 19, 2008, at 7:18 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to implement llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC. I've modelled > my patch (attached) on the implementation in X86, but when I try and > compile my test file (also attached) with llc I get the error "Cannot > yet select: 0x10fa4ad0: ch = MemBarrier 0x10fa4828, 0x10fa4c68, > 0x10fa4be0,