similar to: [LLVMdev] Integer handling

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:41 AM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > I have ended up making a rather complicated type system to handle > quite a few things, all stemming from the fact that the integer type > has no sign information (even if it did not use it, would be nice to > look at it in my code generator to so I can put out one function type > [snip] Hi, I

On Sep 29, 2008, at 1:29 PM, Scott Graham wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:41 AM, OvermindDL1 > <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >> I have ended up making a rather complicated type system to handle >> quite a few things, all stemming from the fact that the integer type >> has no sign information (even if it did not use it, would be nice to >> look at it in

I know why it was removed, and it does make sense, just would be nice if there was an option to be able to get two pointer to a specific llvm::IntegerType, functionally they would be identical, but for user code (hence, my code) would be useful as I could match it for the different ones at generate different code for each. With some discussion with others I think we came up with an acceptable

Grr... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> Date: Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Adding multiples-of-8 integer types to MVT To: Duncan Sands <duncan.sands at math.u-psud.fr> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Duncan Sands <duncan.sands at math.u-psud.fr> wrote: >>> Would there be any interest/opposition

Do note though, that would cause an interface breaking change (just in the function signatures, but still). An alternate would be to just pass in a struct that the user can subclass to perform their own error reporting, call a certain function in it or so before it finally bails out, it puts a level of indirection so if someone wants to recover they will have to use their own variables stored

First off, most of my information about the integer representation in LLVM is from http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#t_integer and I could use some things cleared up. First, I guess that smaller integer sizes, say, i1 (boolean) are stuffed into a full word size for the cpu it is compiled on (so 8bits, or 32 bits or whatever). What if someone made an i4 and compiled it on 32/64 bit windows/nix/bsd

In 3.1, the backend is very slow to legalize types. Following is the code snippet which may be the culprit: %Result.i.i.i97 = alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i96= alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i95 = alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i94 = alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i93 = alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i92= alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i91 = alloca i33, align 8

> Patches to do the kind of checking you're asking about would be > welcome :-). I don't think it makes sense to extend the > Verifier itself here; it's supposed to accept any valid LLVM IR. > I think a separate CodeGenVerifier might be a good approach > though, or possibly extending codegen itself with the ability to > interrupt itself and yield some kind of error

On Sep 8, 2008, at 4:30 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote: >> The Verifier pass is recommended; it catches a lot of >> invalid stuff and be configured to abort, print an error to >> stderr, or return an error status and message string. >> >> It doesn't catch everything though; codegen's error >> handling today is usually an assertion failure, assuming >>

Would there be any interest/opposition to extending the set of simple integer types in MVT to include the missing multiples of 8 (up to 64 bits)? That is: i24, i40, i48, i56? Adding the types to MVT (and ValueTypes.td) would allow LLVM to be targeted to architectures that have registers and operations of these sizes (for example, a 24-bit DSP that I'd like to develop a back end for has 24-,

OvermindDL1 wrote: > > I know why it was removed, and it does make sense, just would be nice > if there was an option to be able to get two pointer to a specific > llvm::IntegerType, functionally they would be identical, but for user > code (hence, my code) would be useful as I could match it for the > different ones at generate different code for each. > Well a language

Hi Chris, > Why not define an "add with overflow" intrinsic that returns its value and > overflow bit as an i1? what's the point? We have this today with apint codegen (if you turn on LegalizeTypes). For example, this function define i1 @cc(i32 %x, i32 %y) { %xx = zext i32 %x to i33 %yy = zext i32 %y to i33 %s = add i33 %xx, %yy %tmp = lshr i33 %s, 32 %b = trunc

Hello, I've come across another example: I'm compiling with clang -S -emit-llvm -std=gnu99 -O3 clang version 2.9 (trunk 118238) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix I take the code: int loops(int x) { int ret = 0; for(int i = 0; i < x; i++) { for(int j = 0; j < x; j++) { ret += 1; } } return ret; } and the

Hi Ken, > What would do you think of modifying case (3) slightly as follows? well, that special cases the smallest legal type, which might not be a good idea. Imagine that i10 is legal, and also i32. Is it better to turn i40 into four lots of i10 or two lots of i32 with a promotion? Expansion is expensive, so two lots of i32 would be best. I suggest the following scheme: (3) Suppose T is

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Fabian Scheler <fabian.scheler at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > thank you for the information. > >>> thanks to kind help of the LLVM-community I was able to bring my >>> TriCore back-end a huge step forward, however I am not done, so far. I >>> still miss the following features and maybe you could again provide me

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Chris, > >> Why not define an "add with overflow" intrinsic that returns its value and >> overflow bit as an i1? > > what's the point? We have this today with apint codegen (if you turn on > LegalizeTypes). For example, this function The desired code is something like: foo: addl %eax, %ecx jo

Hi Eli, thank you for the information. >> thanks to kind help of the LLVM-community I was able to bring my >> TriCore back-end a huge step forward, however I am not done, so far. I >> still miss the following features and maybe you could again provide me >> some help: >> >> 1. Passing return values on the stack >> >> Describing the calling

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Matt Giuca <mattgiuca at gmail.com> wrote: > /* snip */ The language I am making is not a traditional scripting language, it is designed for heavy math work. It has not classes, the basic data structure is a struct, yet even those are only used to pass messages. It is using the Actor-Oriented model, not Object-Oriented. I have been creating it to deal

David Peixotto <dmp <at> rice.edu> writes: > I am seeing the wf loop get optimized just fine with llvm 2.8 (and almost as good with head). I rechecked this and am I actually seeing the same results as you. I think I must have made a stupid mistake in my tests before - sorry for the noise. However, I found that we have a phase ordering problem which is preventing us getting as much

Hi! During my backend development I get the error message for some tests: *** Bad machine code: Virtual register def doesn't dominate all uses. *** (C source-code, byte-code disassembly and printed machine code at the end of the email) The first USE of vreg4 in BB#1 has no previous DEF in BB#0 or #1. But why? I can't see how the LLVM byte-code is transformed to the lower machine code.