similar to: [LLVMdev] Adding Intrinsics for custom processor (frotend problem)

Luke Dalessandro wrote: > Gil, it's really easy to add builtins to the llvm-gcc frontend and have > them auto-magically converted to the llvm intrinsic versions. The main > problem with this is that you end up with a non-standard front end that > you have to somehow distribute to the people who need it. There may be > funny licensing problems, etc... I don't really

Personally I would just modify the frontend - it's not that hard once you know where to look . In this case all you need to do is add the declaration of your builtin to the TARGET_INIT_BUILTINS target hook (see the gcc internals manual) defined in the gcc/config directory corresponding to your target. If the name the the declaration matches the name used with GCCBuiltin in the intrinsics

Chris Lattner wrote: > As others have mentioned, hacking the front-end isn't that hard. In > any case though, please be aware that a precompiled binary for a non- > MIPS target won't produce correct code if you are (for example) using > an x86 front-end and forcing llc to generate mips code with llc - > march=mips. The front-end does type layout and knows very ABI

Hi. My name is Gil Dogon and I am working in MobileEye using LLVM in order to generate code for a proprietary processor. Our processor architecture is very similar to MIPS, so I started to work using the "experimental" MIPS back end. Anyway, my question is rather simple but somehow I did not find a quick answer to it in the documentation. What I want to know, is how can the

OK , grepping the whole source tree for 'ctlz' I found the answer to my question in: test/FrontendC/2006-01-16-BitCountIntrinsicsUnsigned.c and that is to use gnu frontend style __builtin_clz() for this one. This test/FrontendC directory has a plethora of other usefull examples so I guess It will be sufficient for me. However I still think that some documentation of the frontend

Hello. I have a problem which is quite basic for array optimization, amd I wonder whether I am missing something, but I could not find the LLVM pass that does it. Consider the following code snippet: int test() { int mat[7][7][7]; int i,j,k,sum=0; for(i=0;i<7;i++){ for(j=0;j<7;j++){ for(k=0;k<7;k++){ sum+=mat[i][j][k]^mat[i][j][k^1]; } } } return

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >> <mailto:mikael.holmen at ericsson.com>> wrote: >> >> i16 (divm16_pseudo …) >> >> stuff? >> >> I've tried >> (i16, i16 (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) >> and >> ((i16, i16)

Hi, On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; that I want to translate to the following instruction during instruction selection: def divm16_pseudo : MyPseudoInst< (outs aNh_0_7:$dst, aNh_0_7:$dst2), (ins

On 03/30/2016 11:51 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >>>> <mailto:mikael.holmen at

Hi, I'm trying to implement a target-agnostic intrinsic, first targeting X86. I'm trying to map the intrinsic SD node to an instruction with a certain target opcode that I've introduced. The issue that I'm running into is what the correct way to lower the argument is. I've done a couple loops on the docs so any help would be appreciated! Some options I've explored but have

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Alberto Magni <alberto.magni86 at gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Justin Holewinski > <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Alberto Magni < > alberto.magni86 at gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Justin, > >> > >> attached you find

I've been looking at inlining invokes / calls done through statepoints and I want to have a design discussion before I sink too much time into something I'll have to throw away. I'm not actively working on adding inlining support to patchpoints, but I suspect these issues are applicable towards teaching LLVM to inline through patchpoints as well. There are two distinct problems to

Alberto, The AMDIL backend solves your problem with intrinsic overloading this way: def int_AMDIL_mad : GCCBuiltin<"__amdil_mad">, TernaryIntFloat; Where TernaryIntFloat is defined as: class TernaryIntFloat : Intrinsic<[llvm_anyfloat_ty], [LLVMMatchType<0>, LLVMMatchType<0>, LLVMMatchType<0>], []>; This allows us to write a

It is my understanding that all you need to do is specify let isTarget = 1 in your .td file and it will generate target specific intrinsics. This should allow you to keep the IntrinsicsPTX.td file in the same location. Micah From: Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 6:13 AM To: Alberto Magni Cc: Villmow, Micah; LLVM Developers Mailing List

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >>> <mailto:mikael.holmen at ericsson.com>> wrote: >>> >>> i16 (divm16_pseudo …) >>>

Hi Justin, sorry for the delay, I have been busy. Micah's proposal requires to move the definitions of the intrinsics from include/llvm/IntrinsicsPTX.td to lib/Target/PTX/PTXIntrinsics.td thus allowing the generation of the file PTXGenIntrinsics.inc which will be included by PTXIntrinsicInfo.cpp. This is a quite big modification, do you agree with this ? Or do you have a better solution.

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:15 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 09:33, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic >> >> def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], >> [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], >>

Hi, i need to check if an overflow of an floating-point arithmetic operation occured. Currently I'm doing something like this (for addition): (LHS > 0 && RHS > 0 && sum <= 0) || (LHS < 0 && RHS < 0 && sum >= 0) This is checked for every addition. Is there a more efficient way like the intrisic for int overflow? How is it possible to raise a

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 09:33, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic > > def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], > [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], > [IntrNoMem]>; > > that I want to translate to the

On Nov 23, 2011 6:57 AM, "Alberto Magni" <alberto.magni86 at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > Alberto, > > The AMDIL backend solves your problem with intrinsic overloading this way: > > def int_AMDIL_mad : GCCBuiltin<"__amdil_mad">, TernaryIntFloat; >