similar to: [LLVMdev] BUILD_TRIPLET node.

Hi Nemanja, I'm attaching a patch that builds on D54583 and implements what we discussed on IRC earlier today. Particularly: * Make LowerCallTo() a virtual function, so it can be wrapped by a subclass. * Implement LowerCallTo() in PPCTargetLowering to wrap TargetLowering::LowerCallTo() and legalize the return node when targeting SPE. * Augment PPCTargetLowering::LowerCall_32SVR4() to

+ Eli Friedman as he often has very insightful comments regarding back end changes. On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 9:03 AM Nemanja Ivanovic <nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote: > The changes seem fine to me. I don't think this is excessively intrusive > and it accomplishes what is needed by targets whose call lowering can > introduce illegal types. > Adding Justin Bogner as the

Aside from the fact that you're checking for i64 specifically instead of generally checking for illegal types, how much of this is really PPC specific? Would this be a reasonable enhancement to the SDAG logic in general? -Hal On 1/4/19 8:03 AM, Nemanja Ivanovic wrote: The changes seem fine to me. I don't think this is excessively intrusive and it accomplishes what is needed by targets

On Jul 1, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > Evan Cheng wrote: >> On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:13 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >> >>> Evan Cheng wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 5:35 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm trying to write a backend for a target with no hardware

Hello everyone, I wanted to attach a node without affecting the present nodes in any way. I tried to use MVT::Glue for that but I think I'm missing something as I could not achieve the below state. LUI LUI | | ADDI ----GLUE---- ADDI | store I've few question about this and Glue node in general, I'll be happy to get some help on

Richard Pennington wrote: > My target doesn't support 64 bit arithmetic, so I'd like to supply > definitions for adde/addc. The problem is I can't seem to figure out the > magic. Here's an example of what I need to generate: > > # two i64s in r5/r6 and r7/r8 > # result in r1/r2, carry in r3 > > # adde > add r2, r6, r8 > cmpltu r3, r2, r6 #

Hi, I have a custom lowering operation on ISD::BITCAST for the PowerPC/SPE target, to convert 'f64 bitcast (i64 build_pair i32, i32)' into a 'f64 BUILD_SPE64 i32, i32' node, which can be seen at https://reviews.llvm.org/D54583. However, when building compiler-rt's lib/builtins/divdc3.c an assertion is triggered that BUILD_PAIR is not legal on line 24. There should be no

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:13 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > > >> Evan Cheng wrote: >> >>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 5:35 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I'm trying to write a backend for a target with no hardware floating >>>> point support. I've added a single i32 register class. I'm

My target doesn't support 64 bit arithmetic, so I'd like to supply definitions for adde/addc. The problem is I can't seem to figure out the magic. Here's an example of what I need to generate: # two i64s in r5/r6 and r7/r8 # result in r1/r2, carry in r3 # adde add r2, r6, r8 cmpltu r3, r2, r6 # compute carry # addc add r1, r5, r7 add r1, zero, r3 Is this

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Fabian Scheler > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:12 AM > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: [LLVMdev] More Back-End Porting Troubles > > Hi LLVM-Folks, > > as mentioned in an earlier post >

All the sub methods called inside ExpandIntegerOperand like ExpandInOp_STORE etc have access to the expanded operands map. Why they aren't passed to target LowerOperation? A target may also want to use the already expanded Lo and Hi parts. - Sanjiv -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, first of all: thanks for your kind, very helpful and unbelievable fast response! >> as mentioned in an earlier post >> (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-July/051677.html) I >> am currently working on a Back-End for the TriCore processor. >> Currently, I am struggling as LLVM could not select zext and load, for >> instance, so some of the testcases

Hi LLVM-Folks, as mentioned in an earlier post (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-July/051677.html) I am currently working on a Back-End for the TriCore processor. Currently, I am struggling as LLVM could not select zext and load, for instance, so some of the testcases in test/CodeGen/Generic are not successfully compiled by my back-end. Furthermore, I am completely puzzled by the

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jul 1, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > > >> Evan Cheng wrote: >> >>> On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:13 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Evan Cheng wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 5:35 AM, Richard Osborne wrote:

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:48 AM, <Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > All the sub methods called inside ExpandIntegerOperand like ExpandInOp_STORE > etc have access to the expanded operands map. > > Why they aren't passed to target LowerOperation? A target may also want to > use the already expanded Lo and Hi parts. You don't really need access to the map; just

Hello, This example input crashes if you run it through llc on x86. [begin example] ; ModuleID = 'test' %struct_2 = type { [90000 x %struct_1] } %struct_1 = type { i8 } define void @testFcn(%struct_2 %in1) { testFcn_entry: %in1_ = alloca %struct_2 store %struct_2 %in1, %struct_2* %in1_, align 8 %localStruct_ = alloca %struct_2 store %struct_2 %in1, %struct_2* %localStruct_,

Hi, In SelectionDAGISel::SelectAllBasicBlocks if (TM.Options.EnableFastISel) FastIS = TLI->createFastISel(*FuncInfo, LibInfo); followed by if (!FastIS) { LowerArguments(Fn); } else { The above implies that implementing FastIS is optional. In contrast to that, testing whether FastIS is actually been used is done by testing if TM.Options.EnableFastISel is set. For example

On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 08:50 -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:31 AM, <Sachin.Punyani at microchip.com> wrote: > > assert(Res.getValueType() == N->getValueType(0) && N->getNumValues() == 1 && > > "Invalid operand expansion"); > > > > LOAD node has two values but the assertion checks N->getNumValues() == 1 >

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

Thank you Craig for explanation. Could be the same algorithm used for custom legalizing given node in LowerOperation and ReplaceNodeResults in case results and inputs of the node are illegal? Or actually such situation is impossible and for given node either LowerOperation or ReplaceNodeResults can be only called? Przemek wt., 28 sty 2020, 18:48 użytkownik Craig Topper <craig.topper at