similar to: [LLVMdev] Connecting two insns by a flag using anonymous pattern.

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Connecting two insns by a flag using anonymous pattern."

2008 Oct 31
1
[LLVMdev] Connecting two insns by a flag using anonymous pattern.
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:51 -0700, Evan Cheng wrote: > I think so. If you are defining your own SDNode's, you need to specify > one as producing a flag, i.e. SDNPOutFlag; the other will be reading a > flag, i.e. SDNPInFlag. > > Evan > The problem is that B produces two values: i8, flag. And I would like to connect C using the flag of B and not by i8. > On Oct 29,
2008 Oct 30
0
[LLVMdev] Connecting two insns by a flag using anonymous pattern.
I think so. If you are defining your own SDNode's, you need to specify one as producing a flag, i.e. SDNPOutFlag; the other will be reading a flag, i.e. SDNPInFlag. Evan On Oct 29, 2008, at 2:55 AM, sanjiv gupta wrote: > def : Pat <(A), (B (C))>; > > can I connect B and C using a flag here? > > TIA, > -Sanjiv > _______________________________________________
2006 Oct 05
1
[LLVMdev] The meaning of SDNPHasChain
Hi, What does it mean if a custom Node in the instructions description file is declared to have a Chain? Looking at different backends, I have the impression that it describes some sort of side effect and usually used for nodes affecting the control flow. But I'm not quite sure. Can someone describe the semantics of this property and also what is a typical usage of it? In particular, I have
2009 Mar 22
3
[LLVMdev] Flags/ConditionCode Model is broken
Hi all, I've spent the day trying to understand setcc/select_cc intricacies, and I thought I should mention that so far as I can tell, the modeling of CPU flags, condition codes and therefore conditional instructions seems pretty broken. On the one hand there are the SDNPInFlag/SDNPOutFlag node properties which allow you to mark an instruction as using or def-ing the CPU flags
2009 Oct 05
2
[LLVMdev] SoftenSetCCOpernads in LegalizeFloatTypes.cpp
Sanjiv Gupta wrote: > Sanjiv Gupta wrote: > >> Duncan Sands wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Sanjiv, I think a lot of the softening code assumes you are dealing >>> with float (32 bits). So it's not just a matter of changing the libcall >>> return type. >>> >>> >>> >> Yes, we are dealing with 32-bits
2009 Dec 25
1
[LLVMdev] SoftenSetCCOpernads in LegalizeFloatTypes.cpp
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 16:54 -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Sanjiv Gupta > <sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > > Sanjiv Gupta wrote: > >> Sanjiv Gupta wrote: > >> > >>> Duncan Sands wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi Sanjiv, I think a lot of the softening code assumes you are
2009 Jun 29
4
[LLVMdev] llvmc for PIC16
Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > 2009/6/18 Sanjiv Gupta <sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com>: > >> Hi Mikhail, >> Thanks for your wonderful help so far. I have few more questions to ask: >> >> How do I modify the driver to pick tools from where the driver itself >> resides, rather than from the PATH? >> Do I need to write some C++ code
2009 Oct 05
0
[LLVMdev] SoftenSetCCOpernads in LegalizeFloatTypes.cpp
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Sanjiv Gupta <sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > Sanjiv Gupta wrote: >> Sanjiv Gupta wrote: >> >>> Duncan Sands wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Sanjiv, I think a lot of the softening code assumes you are dealing >>>> with float (32 bits).  So it's not just a matter of changing the libcall
2009 Jul 16
3
[LLVMdev] llvm-ld -disable-opt behavior.
On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 10:37 -0700, Devang Patel wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:32 AM, sanjiv gupta<sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > > Consider the example command line below > > > > $ llvm-ld -disable-opt hello.bc -l std -o hello.out > > > > Why does -disable-opt links in all the bitcode from the libstd.so into > > hello.out? > > ...
2009 Jul 16
0
[LLVMdev] llvm-ld -disable-opt behavior.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:29 PM, sanjiv gupta<sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 10:37 -0700, Devang Patel wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:32 AM, sanjiv gupta<sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: >> > Consider the example command line below >> > >> > $ llvm-ld -disable-opt hello.bc -l std -o hello.out >> >
2009 Jun 30
0
[LLVMdev] llvmc for PIC16
Hi Sanjiv, 2009/6/29 Sanjiv Gupta <sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com>: > I want to retrieve the value of argv[0] (which was passed to main function > of the driver) in PrependCustomizedPath. I've added a way to access argv[0] in hooks: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.cvs/50789 -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against
2009 Sep 11
1
[LLVMdev] tblgen bug in handling case , switch_on
Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sanjiv Gupta > <sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > >> Why do we need both 'conflict' and 'warning' ? >> > > 'warning' just prints a warning, 'conflict' is a fatal error. > > A better example would be something like: > > (warning (and
2009 Jul 02
2
[LLVMdev] llvmc for PIC16
Hi Sanjiv, On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Sanjiv Gupta<sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > I found out the problem. Looks like I can not rely on argv[0] to contain the > full path of the executable always. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. > Can I rely on: > static Path GetMainExecutable(const char *argv0, void *MainAddr); Clang relies on it. According to
2009 Jun 15
3
[LLVMdev] llvmc for PIC16
Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > 2009/6/15 Sanjiv Gupta <sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com>: > >> Hi Mikhail, >> How do you build mcc16 executable? >> > > This should work: > > $ cd $LLVM_DIR/tools/llvmc/examples/mcc16 > $ make > > I configure llvm into a separate directory from source. When I do the steps you mentioned in
2009 Sep 10
4
[LLVMdev] tblgen bug in handling case , switch_on
Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Mikhail > Glushenkov<the.dead.shall.rise at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Sanjiv, >> >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Mikhail >> Glushenkov<the.dead.shall.rise at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> [...] >>> >> [Sorry, the formatting was a
2009 Jun 18
3
[LLVMdev] llvmc for PIC16
Hi Mikhail, Thanks for your wonderful help so far. I have few more questions to ask: How do I modify the driver to pick tools from where the driver itself resides, rather than from the PATH? And how to make sure that we have same behavior on Windows as far as paths (/ Vs \) and picking up tools from the driver directory is concerned? Do I need to write some C++ code to customize such
2008 Sep 30
2
[LLVMdev] Type Legalizer Question.
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:
2009 Jul 15
0
[LLVMdev] llvm-ld -disable-opt behavior.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:32 AM, sanjiv gupta<sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > Consider the example command line below > > $ llvm-ld -disable-opt hello.bc -l std -o hello.out > > Why does -disable-opt links in all the bitcode from the libstd.so into > hello.out? ... because it just disables optimization passed. It does not disable linking. ? - Devang
2008 Oct 01
3
[LLVMdev] Type Legalizer Question.
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 11:12 +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi, > > > I have another query related to type legalizer. > > Can a target ignore certain nodes during legalize? Probably a hook for > > target that can be called inside IgnoreNodeResults ()? > > while this could be done, I don't like the idea of doing an end-run > around the whole type legalization
2008 Oct 02
0
[LLVMdev] Type Legalizer Question.
On Oct 1, 2008, at 3:01 AM, sanjiv gupta wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 11:12 +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> I have another query related to type legalizer. >>> Can a target ignore certain nodes during legalize? Probably a hook >>> for >>> target that can be called inside IgnoreNodeResults ()? >> >> while this could be