similar to: [LLVMdev] Look-ahead instruction selection

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Alex <alex.lavoro.propio at gmail.com> wrote: > In .td file, if the pattern to match the DAG is: > > (vector_shuffle (mul build_vector, build_vector)) > > is it possible to return 'mul' (SDNode*) instead of returning the first > 'vector_shuffle'? > > It seems to me that the default instruction selector can only return

Maybe I didn't describe the question very well. I want to match these patterns: (and (mul node:$val0, node:$val1)) (and (add node:$val0, node:$val1)) (and (sub node:$val0, node:$val1)) (and (udiv node:$val0, node:$val1)) into "four" different machines instructions, respectively: MUL_AND ADD_AND SUB_AND UDIV_AND That is, this machine is capable of doing an

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at

The AVX saga continues. I am attempting to write a pattern for VEXTRACTF128 but am having some problems. My attempt looks something like this: defm EXTRACTF128 : avx_fp_extract_vector_osta_node_mri_256<0x19, MRMDestReg, MRMDestMem, "extractf128", undef, X86f32, X86i32i8, // rr [(set VR128:$dst,

Hello, I am trying to convert the subtree (vector_shuffle v2f32, v2f32 (build_vector imm1, imm2)) to a machine instruction that takes 2 v2f32's and 2 immediates. I tried the following table gen pattern : (set v2f32Reg:$dst, (vector_shuffle v2f32Reg:$src1, v2f32Reg:$src2, (build_vector imm:$c1, imm:$c2))) Table gen barfs about type

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Rail, >> >> Two hints to begin with: >> >> 1) Makes sure you example is

Hi Krzysztof, Sure, please see below. DAG.dump.() before and after, annotated with what I believe the DAG means. I've spent some time debugging the method but it's proving difficult to determine where the logic is misfiring. Disabling the entire combine causes a lot of failing x86-64 tests - I may have to learn an upstream vector ISA to make progress on this. Thank you >From your

Hello. I'm having problems at instruction selection with my back end with the following basic-block due to a vector add with immediate constant vector (obtained by vectorizing a simple C program doing vector sum map): vector.ph: ; preds = %vector.memcheck50 %.splatinsert = insertelement <8 x i64> undef, i64 %i.07.unr, i32 0

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 12:52 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com <mailto:rail at esenciatech.com>> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com <mailto:rail at esenciatech.com>> wrote: >> On Thu,

I have the following selection DAG: SelectionDAG has 9 nodes: t0: ch = EntryToken t2: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg0 t16: i32,ch = load<LD1[%ptr](tbaa=<0x10023c9f448>), anyext from i8> t0, t2, undef:i64 t15: v16i8 = BUILD_VECTOR t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16 t11: ch,glue = CopyToReg t0, Register:v16i8 %V2, t15

Hello, I'm working on extending the current PowerPC backend to handle a vector instruction set for floating-point operations (IBM's double-hummer instruction set used on the BG/P supercomputers). In this instruction set, each of the existing floating-point registers becomes the first of two vector elements. I am having trouble optimizing the BUILD_VECTOR operation for the case where I am

For values above integer accuracy in floats, val - floor(val) might actually produce a value greater than 1. For such large floats, it's reasonable to be imprecise, but it's unreasonable for FRC to return a value that is not between 0 and 1. Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> --- src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/codegen/nv50_ir_from_tgsi.cpp | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2

How can I prevent some nodes from being combined in DAGCombine.cpp? Maybe what I want to do below doesn't follow the philosophy of LLVM, but I'd like to know if there is any way to avoid node from being combined. TargetLowering::PerformDAGCombine() is only called if DAGCombiner cannot combine a specific node. It seems that there is no chance to stop it from combining a node. I need the

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Roland Scheidegger <sroland at vmware.com> wrote: > Am 18.11.2014 um 05:03 schrieb Ilia Mirkin: >> For values above integer accuracy in floats, val - floor(val) might >> actually produce a value greater than 1. For such large floats, it's >> reasonable to be imprecise, but it's unreasonable for FRC to return a >> value that

Is there an established way of disabling a DAG combine on a per target basis, where it appears to be detrimental to the generated code? Writing if (!mytarget) in DAGCombiner.cpp works but tends to be erased by git merge and generally doesn't look ideal. Writing the inverse transform in target specific code doesn't work in this instance and in general creates an infinite loop. Guidance

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Mon Ping Wang <wangmp at apple.com> wrote: > The problem with generating insert and extracts is that we can generate poor > code > %tmp16 = extractelement <4 x float> %f4b, i32 0 > %f8a = insertelement <8 x float> %f8a, float %tmp16, i32 0 > %tmp18 = extractelement <4 x float> %f4b, i32 1 > %f8c

On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > OK here's the patch for real this time :) > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test > "union.ll" does not work, so you probably don't want to check this > in as is. However, I'd be interested in any

On 18/11/14 14:34, Roland Scheidegger wrote: > Am 18.11.2014 um 15:05 schrieb Ilia Mirkin: >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Roland Scheidegger <sroland at vmware.com> wrote: >>> Am 18.11.2014 um 05:03 schrieb Ilia Mirkin: >>>> For values above integer accuracy in floats, val - floor(val) might >>>> actually produce a value greater than 1. For such

Dan, Thanks a lot. Using a modifier in the assembly string works for this case. I am trying to solve a related problem. I am trying to print out a set of "mov" ops for the vector_shuffle node. Since the source of the "mov" is from one of the sources to vector_shuffle, depending on the mask, I am not sure what assembly string to emit. For example, if I have d <-

On Oct 26, 2008, at 1:03 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi all, I plan to turn on the new type legalization infrastructure > "LegalizeTypes" by default tomorrow. This is a redesign/ > reimplementation > of the logic currently in LegalizeDAG that turns (for example) 64 bit > arithmetic on a 32 bit machine into a series of 32 bit operations. > As well > as being a