similar to: [LLVMdev] [patch] Missing instructions in llvm-c.

Hi. Version 0.5 of llvm-py, Python bindings for LLVM, has been released. This version supports (only) LLVM 2.4. New instructions of LLVM 2.4 (vicmp, vfcmp, insertvalue, extractvalue) are available. Home page: http://mdevan.nfshost.com/llvm-py/ Feedback welcome. Thanks & Regards, -Mahadevan.

On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > Hi, > > I have some questions as to the definition of various vector > instructions. In particular, I believe there are some gaps and > inconsistencies in the vector instructions, and I'm interested in > hearing whether you agree that these should be improved or whether > there are other ways to solve these problems.

> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:42:49 -0800 > From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [ANN] llvm-py 0.5 released. > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Message-ID: <B7A557A7-587A-478A-AB94-B03FDA6254A8 at apple.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > > On Nov 22,

On Jul 21, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > Hi, > > We would like to extend the vector operations in llvm a bit. We're > hoping to get some feedback on the right way to go, or some starting > points. I had previously had some discussion on this list about a > subset of the changes we have in mind. > > All of these changes are intended to make

Hi, I have some questions as to the definition of various vector instructions. In particular, I believe there are some gaps and inconsistencies in the vector instructions, and I'm interested in hearing whether you agree that these should be improved or whether there are other ways to solve these problems. === 1. Shufflevector only accepts vectors of the same type Shufflevector seems overly

Hi Dan, Thanks for your comments. I've responded inline below. On 26-Jun-08, at 6:49 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: >> >> === >> 1. Shufflevector only accepts vectors of the same type >> >> I would propose to change the syntax from: >> >>> <result> = shufflevector <n x <ty>>

Now that icmp and fcmp have supported returning vectors of i1 for a while, I think it's time to remove the vicmp and vfcmp instructions from LLVM. The good news is that we've never shipped a release that included them so we won't be providing auto-upgrade support. There is some existing backend support for vicmp and vfcmp that looks different from what icmp and fcmp do. If this

Hi, We would like to extend the vector operations in llvm a bit. We're hoping to get some feedback on the right way to go, or some starting points. I had previously had some discussion on this list about a subset of the changes we have in mind. All of these changes are intended to make target-independent IR (i.e. IR without machine specific intrinsics) generate better code or be

On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Jun 24, 2009, at 12:47 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > >> Hi Nick, >> >>> Now that icmp and fcmp have supported returning vectors of i1 for a >>> while, >> >> the code generators don't know how to codegen vectors of i1, so does >> this actually work? > > No, but there are no

On Jun 24, 2009, at 12:47 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Nick, > >> Now that icmp and fcmp have supported returning vectors of i1 for a >> while, > > the code generators don't know how to codegen vectors of i1, so does > this actually work? No, but there are no clients of them yet. -Chris

On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: >>>> <result> = shufflevector <a x <ty>> <v1>, <b x <ty>> <v2>, <d x >>>> i32> >>>> <mask> ; yields <d x <ty>> >>> >>> With the requirement that the entries in the (still constant) mask >>> are >>> within

Hi Chris, I've attached a replacement of fibonacci.cpp that reproduces the issue on x86/SSE systems. Regarding the definition of the VFCmp instruction, I think it would really be a lot more valuable to define it as returning all 1's or all 0's per element. Just setting the most significant bit is pretty much worthless (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I checked and I

> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:30:09 -0800 > From: Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [ANN] llvm-py 0.5 released. > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Message-ID: <492841A1.2040400 at mxc.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Mahadevan R wrote: >> Hi. >> >>

On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Claudio Basile <cbasile at tempo-da.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> is there any way to compare two 128bit values? >> I have tried 3 different approaches and they all fail with an internal >> assertion. >> I'm running llvm 2.4 on

Hi Nate! I don't see how that would work. Select doesn't work per element. Say we're trying to vectorize the following C++ code: if(v[0] < 0) v[0] += 1.0f; if(v[1] < 0) v[1] += 1.0f; if(v[2] < 0) v[2] += 1.0f; if(v[3] < 0) v[3] += 1.0f; With SSE assembly this would be as simple as: movaps xmm1, xmm0 // v in xmm0 cmpltps xmm1, zero // zero =

On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > When trying to generate a VFCmp instruction when UnsafeFPMath is set > to true I get an assert “Unexpected CondCode” on my x86 system. This > also happens with UnsafeFPMath set to false and using an unordered > compare. Could someone look into this? Please provide a testcase. > > While I’m at it, is

On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > When trying to generate a VFCmp instruction when UnsafeFPMath is set > to true I get an assert “Unexpected CondCode” on my x86 system. This > also happens with UnsafeFPMath set to false and using an unordered > compare. Could someone look into this? Have you filed a bug? > > While I’m at it, is there

On Dec 25, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Eli Friedman > <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Claudio Basile <cbasile at tempo- >> da.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> is there any way to compare two 128bit values? >>> I have tried 3 different approaches

Hi all, When trying to generate a VFCmp instruction when UnsafeFPMath is set to true I get an assert "Unexpected CondCode" on my x86 system. This also happens with UnsafeFPMath set to false and using an unordered compare. Could someone look into this? While I'm at it, is there any reason why only the most significant bit of the return value of VFCmp is defined (according to

On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > When trying to generate a VFCmp instruction when UnsafeFPMath is set > to true I get an assert “Unexpected CondCode” on my x86 system. This > also happens with UnsafeFPMath set to false and using an unordered > compare. Could someone look into this? > > While I’m at it, is there any reason why only the