similar to: [LLVMdev] sign extensions on loads?

I have a tablegen string that I want to add a modifier to the registers that are being matched. For example a simple match on fneg: def FNEG : OneInOneOut<IL_OP_MOV, (outs GPR:$dst), (ins GPR:$src0), "mov $dst, $src0", [(set GPR:$dst, (fneg GPR:$src0))]>; I want to place a modifier directly after $src0 in the string so that no space is between the string and

I'm trying to write a store pattern that accepts both i32 and f32, however, when tablegen generates the code, it only generates the code for i32 only. def ADDR : ComplexPattern<i32, 2, "SelectADDR", [], []>; def MEM : Operand<i32> { let PrintMethod = "printMemOperand"; let MIOperandInfo = (ops GPR, GPR); } def global_st :

On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I’m trying to write a store pattern that accepts both i32 and f32, > however, when tablegen generates the code, it only generates the > code for i32 only. > > def ADDR : ComplexPattern<i32, 2, "SelectADDR", [], []>; > def MEM : Operand<i32> { > let PrintMethod = "printMemOperand";

We are syncing to 2.9 and we are hitting an with our backend in VerifySDNode in SelectionDAG.cpp. The first assert here is failing assert(!isa<MemSDNode>(N) && "Bad MemSDNode!"); Now, this is new to 2.9 and I am trying to understand what is invalid about what I am generating. What I generate has worked fine from LLVM version 2.4 until now without causing any issues.

I have two patterns in tablegen that do look like the exact same thing: Pat 1) def MOV_v4i16 : ILFormat<IL_OP_MOV, (outs GPRV4I16:$dst), (ins i16imm:$val), asm, [(set GPRV4I16:$dst, (build_vector (i16 imm:$val)))]>; Pat 2) def v4i16imm : Operand<v4i16>; def MOV_v4i16 : ILFormat<IL_OP_MOV, (outs GPRV4I16:$dst), (ins v4i16imm:$val), asm, [(set

I am having a problem with instruction selection with pattern fragments. With my custom target, in order to simplify code generation patterns, I do not allow a constant to be used in an instruction(mainly because they have declare before use semantics). Now the problem I am having is that I cannot get a instruction that contains pattern fragment that uses an immediate value to be selected before

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I am having a problem with instruction selection with pattern fragments. > > With my custom target, in order to simplify code generation patterns, I do > not allow a constant to be used in an instruction(mainly because they have > declare before use semantics). > > > > Now the

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 7:15 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Setting priority in instruction selection > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> > wrote: > > I am having a problem

So, I have this small test program that I figured would cause no problems but want to test all the various data types and operations with my modified sparc backend. I've been working on LLVM for about 3 days now, so this might be a problem with not knowing enough yet, so thanks for bearing with me. The code that I based my example off of is compiled to LLVM-IR from: void

Many oveloaded intrinsics may be replaced with instructions - fabs or fma or sqrt. Chandler will probably explain the criteria. What the diff between fma and fadd? Or fptrunc and fabs? A new instruction like %a = loadm <4 x i32>* %addr, <4 x i32> %passthru, i32 4, <4 x i1>%mask is possible, but may be not very useful for most of targets. So we start from intrinsics. -

New to linux and new to Samba so any direction in troubleshooting would be helpful. Here is what I have so far. Within a half an hour of a reboot of the server my cpu reaches high numbers and becomes slow to respond on all actions. With my limited understanding I have used vmstat to observe the system. I noticed is that the numbers of forks grows from 1-2k to 43k within 30 minutes after reboot. I

On 18/12/14 16:19, Germ van Eck wrote: > Not sure about the high CPU load, but you have the [netlogon] share > twice in your smb.conf. Your first matches mine, have you added the > second yourself? > The second one looks weird with 2 path definitions. > Cj Tibbetts schreef op do 18-12-2014 om 08:59 [-0700]: >> New to linux and new to Samba so any direction in troubleshooting

I am trying to make some modifications to our code generator that will produce better code, but require adding new patterns. What I am trying to do is take a register/register pattern and change it to a register/immediate. So for example, I have this pattern: class ILFormat<ILOpCode op, dag outs, dag ins, string asmstr, list<dag> pattern> : Instruction { let Namespace =

Hi, I have a simple question w.r.t the order of operands used in dag pattern matching in target files. Some of them seem intuitive. But I want to get it clarified anyway. I am using a pattern from X86InstrFMA.td in the below example. Consider FMA3 pattern (simplified). let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in { multiclass fma3s_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr, X86MemOperand

I'm not at the machine that has the changes, but it was failing at index 0. Micah From: Owen Anderson [mailto:resistor at mac.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 3:35 PM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Tablegen to match a literal in an instruction Micah, I don't see anything wrong with this offhand. Have you tried getting the debug output

Micah, I don't see anything wrong with this offhand. Have you tried getting the debug output from llc -debug, and matching it up with the state machine in your DAGISel.inc to see at what step the auto-generated matcher is failing to match your and-with-immediate? -Owen On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:07 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I am trying to make

On 16 November 2012 13:41, Anitha B Gollamudi <anitha.boyapati at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a simple question w.r.t the order of operands used in dag > pattern matching in target files. Some of them seem intuitive. But I > want to get it clarified anyway. I am using a pattern from > X86InstrFMA.td in the below example. Consider FMA3 pattern > (simplified). >

Right, it's failing when it tries to materialize a move of a constant into a register. But it's only trying to do that because it previously failed to fold the constant into the AND. What you need to do is step through the path it takes when matching the AND node, and try to figure out why it ends up selecting the register-register version rather than the register-immediate version.

I think that what I did originally should have worked and the bug was correct as I reported it. Here is an alternate implementation which has the same problem. class ArithLogicRTest16<string I, SDNode OpNode, bit isComm = 0>: FRRR16<!cast<FRRR16_ins>(I).f, !cast<FRRR16_ins>(I).OutOperandList, !cast<FRRR16_ins>(I).InOperandList,

You've unfortunately chosen a complex example. Your second question is needs be answered first. null_frag causes the pattern to be dropped. Now having covered that the reason the operands are in the order they are is because the only instruction that doesn't use null_frag is this one defm r213 : fma3s_rm<opc213, !strconcat(OpStr, !strconcat("213", PackTy)),