similar to: [LLVMdev] Intrinsic cannot use illegal type

Hi Christian, > I use a target specific Intrinsic that returns an illegal type. > The idea is that this returned value shall be eliminated when the > Intrinsic node is lowered to a target node. > I realize that this is a rather late stage, since (at least) > SelectionDAGLowering::visitTargetIntrinsic() requires legal types, > and type legalization in general is also done before

Thank you Craig for explanation. Could be the same algorithm used for custom legalizing given node in LowerOperation and ReplaceNodeResults in case results and inputs of the node are illegal? Or actually such situation is impossible and for given node either LowerOperation or ReplaceNodeResults can be only called? Przemek wt., 28 sty 2020, 18:48 użytkownik Craig Topper <craig.topper at

Hi, I see that for different targets in classes which inherits from TargetLowering there are implemented both methods: LowerOperation and ReplaceNodeResults What decides that for one given ISD we have to add handling in LowerOperation and for other in ReplaceNodeResults, when for both SetOperationAction is configured to be Custom? Is it related with number of results of given operation and

Hi, I am defining Hexagons version of ReplaceNodeResults to change the a node of the type A: i8 = INTRINSIC_WO_CHAIN ... , ... , To B: SIGN_EXTEND (A) After returning from my function, the type legalizer calss ReplaceValuesUsesWith to replace the uses of A with B. Unfortunately, it replaces the use of A in the new node B too. So the node now is B: SIGN_EXTEND(B) , which is clearly bad and the

Hi, I recently started helping with the LLVM AVR backend [1]. The AVR is an 8 bit core with pointer type i16. That makes pointers illegal in the SelectionDAG. As far as I understand it, it is the backends job to legalize these nodes by using the ReplaceNodeResults/LowerOperation callbacks. Is that about right? I have the feeling that the symbolic nodes carrying pointers, like FrameIndex are

Hi Duncan, > as well as what Eli said, ReplaceNodeResults requires (IIRC) the new node to > have the same type as the old node, which doesn't seem to be the case > here. Are you sure ? I see ReplaceNodeResults being called from functions such as CustomWidenLowerNode and CustomLowerNode. In the former, we are clearly expecting a change in type, aren't we? Even in the latter,

On 27 Jun 2015, at 16:13, escha <escha at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> I recently started helping with the LLVM AVR backend [1]. The AVR is an 8 bit core with pointer type i16. That makes pointers illegal in the SelectionDAG. As far as I understand it, it is the backends job to legalize these nodes by using the ReplaceNodeResults/LowerOperation callbacks.

> -----Original Message----- > From: Duncan Sands [mailto:baldrick at free.fr] > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 5:23 PM > To: Sanjiv Kumar Gupta - I00171 > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5 > > Hi Sanjiv, > > > Well, the first email is here. > > > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon- >

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:03 +0100, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > > Well the magnitude of the task is not small. > > ExpandIntegerOperand() calls LowerOperation() to allow targets to handle > > illegal operands. So we will need to change the interface of > > LowerOperation() to pass an extra argument called Results, which is an > > array of SDValue.

void SelectionDAGBuilder::visitTargetIntrinsic(const CallInst &I, - unsigned Intrinsic) { - bool HasChain = !I.doesNotAccessMemory(); - bool OnlyLoad = HasChain && I.onlyReadsMemory(); + unsigned Intrinsic) { + // Info is set by getTgtMemInstrinsic + TargetLowering::IntrinsicInfo Info; + bool

Hi Pranav, >> as well as what Eli said, ReplaceNodeResults requires (IIRC) the new node > to >> have the same type as the old node, which doesn't seem to be the case >> here. > > Are you sure ? I see ReplaceNodeResults being called from functions such as > CustomWidenLowerNode and CustomLowerNode. > In the former, we are clearly expecting a change in type,

Hi Sanjiv, > Well the magnitude of the task is not small. > ExpandIntegerOperand() calls LowerOperation() to allow targets to handle > illegal operands. So we will need to change the interface of > LowerOperation() to pass an extra argument called Results, which is an > array of SDValue. Targets will push the result values in this array and > then we can replace values in

On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 20:28 +0100, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > > + /// CustomLowerOperation - This callback is invoked for operations that are > > + /// unsupported by the target, which are registered to use 'custom' lowering, > > + /// and whose defined values are all legal. > > and whose defined values are all legal -> and whose return

Hi Sanjiv, > + /// CustomLowerOperation - This callback is invoked for operations that are > + /// unsupported by the target, which are registered to use 'custom' lowering, > + /// and whose defined values are all legal. and whose defined values are all legal -> and whose return values all have legal types > + /// If the target has no operations that require custom

From: Villmow, Micah Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:37 PM To: 'llvm-dev at cs.uiuc.edu' Cc: Guo, Xiaoyi Subject: Bug in SelectionDAG visitTargetIntrinsic We ran into a problem where specifying IntrNoMem was causing our instruction selection to fail with target specific intrinsics. After looking into the code and ISel debug it looks like tablegen and SelectionDAG are using different

I am hoping that someone can offer advice on a somewhat unusual issue that I am facing with the SDAG. Namely, I am trying to implement some custom operations that do very specific things on multiple registers at a time. The operations themselves will simply be intrinsics since there are no equivalent operations in IR/SDAG. However, handling the types seems rather tricky. One approach I tried is

Hi Duncan, We are targetting a reasonably functional PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5. The only problem in our way is a local patch in ExpandIntegerOperand, which couldn't make its way to trunk so far. The discussion is contained in the following link: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20081103/069593.html I now have time to take it up again and do whatever rework is

Salut Ivan, On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > Le 25/05/2012 18:54, Sebastian Pop a écrit : >> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Sebastian Pop<spop at codeaurora.org>  wrote: >>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Hal Finkel<hfinkel at anl.gov>  wrote: >>>> Sebastian,

On 2015/8/4 3:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [SNIP] >> I'll post 2 LLVM patches by replying this mail. Please have a look and >> help me >> send them to LLVM if you think my code is correct. > > [SNIP] > patch 2: > do we really need to hack clang? > Can you just define a function that aliases to intrinsic, > like we do for ld_abs/ld_ind ? > void

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Pranav Bhandarkar <pranavb at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I am defining Hexagons version of ReplaceNodeResults to change the a node of > the type > A: i8 = INTRINSIC_WO_CHAIN ... , ... , > > To > B: SIGN_EXTEND (A) > > After returning from my function, the type legalizer The type legalizer asked your target to replace an