similar to: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:35 PMPST, Mike Stump wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Kasra wrote: >>> I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find >>> ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these >>> instructions to LLVM? >>

On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:35 PMPST, Mike Stump wrote: > On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Kasra wrote: >> I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find >> ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these >> instructions to LLVM? > > Not sure what you mean: He's referring to the LLVM IR, I think, and it's true that doesn't have

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Cc: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 2:52 PM > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Dale Johannesen

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 4:17 PM > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kasra > <kasra_n500

Hi, I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these instructions to LLVM? The reason that I am asking is for cryptographical algorithms which are becoming ever more important rotation is a major operation. Thus including such instruction could reduce 3 instructions {shl, shr, or} into {rol | ror} which could gain

On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Kasra wrote: > I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find > ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these > instructions to LLVM? Not sure what you mean: $ cat t.c unsigned int rol(unsigned int i) { return i << 1 | i >> 31; } mrs $ clang -S t.c -O2 mrs $ cat t.s .text .align 4,0x90 .globl _rol

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kasra <kasra_n500 at yahoo.com> wrote: > > I guess the backends could know about the instructions. But I am not convinced why it is beneficial not to have ROR and ROL instructions within llvm. > I guess I could ask you the opposite question: What is the benefit of having these? They would have to be mappable to the source language in some way. I'm

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > From: Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 4:20 PM > On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Kasra wrote: > > I guess the

On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Kasra wrote: > I guess the backends could know about the instructions. But I am not > convinced why it is beneficial not to have ROR and ROL instructions > within llvm. > How would it be beneficial to have them, if we already generate them at the target level properly? Adding instructions "just because" doesn't seem wise. -Owen

Thanks Nick for the compile. I think the case for rol/ror is closed. Since LLVM optomises the code into rotations anyway. -- Kasra

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Bill, > >> I guess I could ask you the opposite question: What is the benefit of >> having these? They would have to be mappable to the source language in >> some way. I'm not sure about Ada, but I don't know of a "rotate" >> operator for any of the C variants, or

Hi Bill, > I guess I could ask you the opposite question: What is the benefit of > having these? They would have to be mappable to the source language in > some way. I'm not sure about Ada, but I don't know of a "rotate" > operator for any of the C variants, or any other high-level language.. Ada has rotate. Ciao, Duncan.

Thanks again, Dale. Hopefully, someone has the answer. Jose -----Original Message----- From: Dale Johannesen [mailto:dalej at apple.com] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 3:52 PM To: Jose Rangel Cc: Dale Johannesen Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] llvm-gcc 4.0 question On Jan 29, 2010, at 3:13 PMPST, Jose Rangel wrote: > Hi Dale, > > Is there a way to get llvm 4.2 and os x 10.4 to work

Hi, I think Dale meant to post this to ask the whole group, instead of just me. Basically, I'd like to build llvm-gcc 4.2 on host i686-apple-darwin9 for target powerpc-apple-darwin8. So far my efforts have failed. If you know the answer or can point me in the right direction, I'd be much obliged. Thx, Jose > Hi Dale, > > Is there a way to get llvm 4.2 and os x 10.4 to work

Hi all, Is it planned to add support of rotations to IR? Thanks, Aleksey Zasenko -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151119/c897b935/attachment.html>

On Jan 29, 2010, at 2:55 PMPST, Jose Rangel wrote: > Hi Dale, > > Thanks for getting back. I may not be able to switch to llvm 4.2 at > this > time. I did try: > > llvm-gcc --emit-llvm -c sumarray.c -o sumarray.bc > llc -march=ppc32 sumarray.bc > gcc -arch ppc sumarray.s > > And this produced a ppc binary that worked (at least in this case). > > Do you

On Feb 2, 2009, at 1:29 PMPST, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> >> On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:06 PMPST, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >>> Now that 2.5 is about to branch, I'd like to bring up one of Scott's >>> favorite topics: certain optimizers widen or narrow arithmetic, >>> without regard for

Hi Dale, Thanks for replying. Concerning Darwin, I compiled this test on snow leopard and ran it using rosetta (that is, using -arch ppc -m32). I will try this later on leopard. Thanks, Jose ________________________________ From: Dale Johannesen [mailto:dalej at apple.com] Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 3:10 PM To: Jose Rangel Cc: Dale Johannesen; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu

On Feb 2, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:06 PMPST, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> Now that 2.5 is about to branch, I'd like to bring up one of Scott's >> favorite topics: certain optimizers widen or narrow arithmetic, >> without regard for whether the type is legal for the target. In his >> specific case, instcombine is

Hi Dale, Thanks for getting back. I may not be able to switch to llvm 4.2 at this time. I did try: llvm-gcc --emit-llvm -c sumarray.c -o sumarray.bc llc -march=ppc32 sumarray.bc gcc -arch ppc sumarray.s And this produced a ppc binary that worked (at least in this case). Do you know if this approach is worthwhile? Thx, Jose -----Original Message----- From: Dale Johannesen [mailto:dalej at