similar to: [LLVMdev] X86InstrFormats.td Question

On Mar 23, 2009, at 12:57 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > I'm looking at the instruction formats and I can't grok the > comments. For > example: > > // SSSE3 Instruction Templates: > // > // SS38I - SSSE3 instructions with T8 prefix. > // SS3AI - SSSE3 instructions with TA prefix. > // > > Where are these prefix names coming from? I can't find any

I am attempting to create an instruction which takes a single 64-bit immediate. This doesn't seem like a thing that would exist already (because who needs an instruction which just takes an immediate?) How might I implement this easily? Perhaps I could use a format which encodes a register, which is then unused? Thanks for the help. Gus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Copy Ii32 in X86InstrFormats.td rename to Ii64 and change Imm32 to Imm64. Instantiate your instruction inheriting from Ii64. Pass RawFrm to the form parameter. Initial documentation for the encoding system is attached. ~Craig On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Gus Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am attempting to create an instruction which takes a single

On Monday 30 March 2009 16:12, David Greene wrote: > There is some redundancy at the instruction format level in the x86 .td > files. For example, in X86InstrFormats.td: > > // SSE1 Instruction Templates: > // > // SSI - SSE1 instructions with XS prefix. > > class SSI<bits<8> o, Format F, dag outs, dag ins, string asm, list<dag> > pattern> > >

On Tuesday 31 March 2009 13:53, Dan Gohman wrote: > > class SSI<bits<8> o, Format F, dag outs, dag ins, string asm, > > list<dag> pattern> > > > > : SSIb<o, F, outs, ins, asm, pattern>, Requires<HasSSE1>; > > Is this just factoring out the ", XS" part? As presented, it looks like > this change would introduce more

On Mar 30, 2009, at 2:53 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Monday 30 March 2009 16:12, David Greene wrote: >> There is some redundancy at the instruction format level in the >> x86 .td >> files. For example, in X86InstrFormats.td: >> >> // SSE1 Instruction Templates: >> // >> // SSI - SSE1 instructions with XS prefix. >> >> class

There is some redundancy at the instruction format level in the x86 .td files. For example, in X86InstrFormats.td: // SSE1 Instruction Templates: // // SSI - SSE1 instructions with XS prefix. class SSI<bits<8> o, Format F, dag outs, dag ins, string asm, list<dag> pattern> : I<o, F, outs, ins, asm, pattern>, XS, Requires<[HasSSE1]>; // SSE3 Instruction

I believe I have now fixed the 0x64 0xa1 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 bug in r199364. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>wrote: > To fix it we need to change offset8/offset16/etc to have two suboperands > and update the printer to understand that. Also update the disassembler to > add the segment to the MCInst when its creating it. When I did these

hi, i am struggling to understand how MRMDestReg is used in X86. in X86InstrFormat.td, we have this: class Format<bits<7> val> { bits<7> Value = val; } def MRMDestReg : Format<3> i think eventually, MRMDestReg is mapped back to ModMRM byte. but this still doesnt make sense to me why MRMDestReg is defined this way, and how it is mapped back to ModRM byte. any hint

OK, here's a new patch that adds the infrastructure and the implementation for X86, ARM and PPC of GetInstSize and GetFunctionSize. Both functions are virtual functions defined in TargetInstrInfo.h. For X86, I moved some commodity functions from X86CodeEmitter to X86InstrInfo. What do you think? Nicolas Evan Cheng wrote: > > I think both of these belong to TargetInstrInfo. And

When I setup my InstrFormat fields, I added some custom fields specific for my backend. How do I access these from inside LLVM? For example: class InstrFormat<dag outs, dag ins, string asmstr, list<dag> pattern> : Instruction { let Namespace = "AMD"; dag OutOperandList = outs; dag InOperandList = ins; let Pattern = pattern; let

FYI, The CRC64 intrinsics were renamed to CRC32 since there is no such thing. See below for details. Chad On May 26, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Chad Rosier wrote: > Author: mcrosier > Date: Thu May 26 18:13:19 2011 > New Revision: 132163 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=132163&view=rev > Log: > Renamed llvm.x86.sse42.crc32 intrinsics; crc64 doesn't exist.

--7ZAtKRhVyVSsbBD2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Netfilter Core Team Security Advisory =20 CVE: CAN-2003-0467 Subject: Netfilter / NAT Remote DoS Released: 01 Aug 2003 Effects: Under limited circumstances, a remote user may be able to crash

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=738 Summary: reading beyond buffer limits in nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c::tcp_options() Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P2 Component: nf_conntrack

Utilize some of the additions in the prior patches to clean up other code: - keep track of REP prefixes in only one variable - use REX_W in a few more places (instead of a literal number) Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c @@ -304,6 +304,10 @@ union vex { ptr[1] = rex |

Comments below. On Apr 15, 2008, at 4:24 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > OK, here's a new patch that adds the infrastructure and the > implementation for X86, ARM and PPC of GetInstSize and > GetFunctionSize. Both functions are virtual functions defined in > TargetInstrInfo.h. > > For X86, I moved some commodity functions from X86CodeEmitter to > X86InstrInfo. >

I am new to the LLVM backends, I am wondering how instruction selection is done in LLVM backends, I looked at the .td files in Target/X86, they all seem to be small and do not deal with common X86 instructions, i.e. mov, push, pop, etc. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I'm looking at scalar and packed instructions in X86. The instruction VCOMISS is scalar. May I remove SSEPackedSingle/SSEPackedDouble domain from it? defm VUCOMISS : sse12_ord_cmp<0x2E, FR32, X86cmp, f32, f32mem, loadf32, "ucomiss", SSEPackedSingle>, TB, VEX, VEX_LIG; defm VUCOMISD : sse12_ord_cmp<0x2E, FR64, X86cmp, f64,

In our generated asm code we've got a constraint such that two registers in a ternary op have to be in different "banks", best illustrated with an example: add r1,r2,r1 # r1 <- r2 + r1 The problem here is that the first operand (the receiver of the value) is in the same "bank" as the 3rd operand (r1 again). This will cause an extra cycle to be burned. As it turns

Actually after some digging I managed to answer these questions for myself. I am guessing that this information is used by the Schedule* classes in CodeGen. --- On Mon, 8/17/09, Carter Cheng <carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > From: Carter Cheng <carter_cheng at yahoo.com> > Subject: [LLVMdev] ARMSchedule.td MipsSchedule.td etc. > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Date: