similar to: [LLVMdev] Reducing .td redundancy

On Mar 23, 2009, at 5:56 PM, David Greene wrote: > Is it legal to do something like a !strconcat on a non-string > entity? That > is, is there some operation that will let me do this (replace > SOME_CONCAT with > an appropriate operator): I don't get it, can you try a simpler example on me? :) -Chris > > > (WARNING! Hacked-up tablegen ahead!) > >

On Tuesday 24 March 2009 10:43, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mar 23, 2009, at 5:56 PM, David Greene wrote: > > Is it legal to do something like a !strconcat on a non-string > > entity? That > > is, is there some operation that will let me do this (replace > > SOME_CONCAT with > > an appropriate operator): > > I don't get it, can you try a simpler example on

Here's the big RFC. A I've gone through and designed patterns for AVX, I quickly realized that the existing SSE pattern specification, while functional, is less than ideal in terms of maintenance. In particular, a number of nearly-identical patterns are specified all over for nearly-identical instructions. For example: let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in { multiclass

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Bill, > Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that > define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to > reduce redundant code. > For example: > multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node> > { > def _i8 : Pat<(sub

Bill, Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to reduce redundant code. For example: multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node> { def _i8 : Pat<(sub GPRI8:$src0, GPRI8:$src1), (ADD_i8 GPRI8:$src0, (NEGATE_i8 GPRI8:$src1))>; def _i32 : Pat<(sub

Chris Lattner wrote: > However, I don't see any reason to base this off of strings. Instead > of passing down "f32" as a string, why not do something like this > pseudo code: > > class X86ValueType { > RegisterClass RegClass; > ... > } > > def X86_f32 : X86ValueType { > let RegClass = FR32; > ... }; > def X86_i32 :

On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:28 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Jakob Stoklund Olesen <jolesen at apple.com> writes: > >>> What happens if the result of the above pattern using COPY_TO_REGCLASS >>> is spilled? Will we get a 64-bit store or a 128-bit store? >> >> This behavior isn't affected by the change. FR64 registers are spilled >> with 64-bit

On Jun 11, 2009, at 2:01 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 11 June 2009 12:28, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> >>> Yes. I want TableGen to be able to infer lots of stuff >>> programmatically. >>> This helps tremendously when specifying things like, oh, AVX. :) >> >> I don't see how this relates to regex's, and really don't want to

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,

On Wed, September 24, 2008 12:10 am, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Sep 23, 2008, at 7:17 PM, David Greene wrote: > >> Chris Lattner wrote: >>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 11:26 AM, David Greene wrote: >>> >>>> Are there any examples of using tablegen to generate multiple >>>> machine >>>> instructions from a single pattern? Or do these cases

On Thursday 11 June 2009 12:28, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:39 PM, David Greene wrote: > > On Tuesday 09 June 2009 14:34, Dan Gohman wrote: > >> Can you describe what problem you're trying to solve here? Does it > >> really need Regular Expressions? > > > > Yes. I want TableGen to be able to infer lots of stuff > >

On Jun 15, 2009, at 11:33 AM, David Greene wrote: > To reduce redundancy, developers must be able to write generic > patterns > like this: > > [(set DSTREGCLASS:$dst, // rr, rrr > (xor (INTSRCTYPE (bitconvert (SRCTYPE SRCREGCLASS:$src1))), > (INTSRCTYPE (bitconvert (SRCTYPE SRCREGCLASS:$src2)))))], > > The substitution then fills in the appropriate types,

On Sep 23, 2008, at 7:17 PM, David Greene wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sep 23, 2008, at 11:26 AM, David Greene wrote: >> >>> Are there any examples of using tablegen to generate multiple >>> machine >>> instructions from a single pattern? Or do these cases always have >>> to be >>> manually expanded? >> >> PPC has a

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sep 23, 2008, at 11:26 AM, David Greene wrote: > >> Are there any examples of using tablegen to generate multiple machine >> instructions from a single pattern? Or do these cases always have >> to be >> manually expanded? > > PPC has a bunch of examples, for example: > > // Arbitrary immediate support. Implement in terms of

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:43 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Jakob Stoklund Olesen <jolesen at apple.com> writes: > >> As far as I can tell, all sub-register operations involving sub_ss and >> sub_sd can simply be replaced with COPY_TO_REGCLASS: >> >> def : Pat<(v4i32 (X86Movsd VR128:$src1, VR128:$src2)), >> (VMOVSDrr VR128:$src1,

Jakob Stoklund Olesen <jolesen at apple.com> writes: >> What happens if the result of the above pattern using COPY_TO_REGCLASS >> is spilled? Will we get a 64-bit store or a 128-bit store? > > This behavior isn't affected by the change. FR64 registers are spilled > with 64-bit stores, and VR128 registers are spilled with 128-bit > stores. > > When the

Hi all, I have a bunch of new registers set up in X86RegisterInfo.td, the important part being def PR128 : RegisterClass<"X86", [i128], 128, (sequence "POI%u", 0, 7)>; def VR128 : RegisterClass<"X86", [v4f32, v2f64, v16i8, v8i16, v4i32, v2i64], 128, (add PR128, FR32)>; I have an entry in

On Aug 25, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Cameron McInally wrote: > Hey guys, > > Are spills/reloads of AVX registers using aligned stores/loads? Yes. > I can't > seem to find the code that aligns the stack slots to 32-bytes. Could > someone point me in the right direction? The register class has 256-bit spill alignment: def VR256 : RegisterClass<"X86", [v32i8, v16i16,

Hi, I noticed a bunch of psuedo instructions used for creation of constants without generating loads. e.g. pxor xmm0, xmm0 Here is an example of what i am referring to snipped from X86InstrSSE.td: def FsFLD0SS : I<0xEF, MRMInitReg, (outs FR32:$dst), (ins), "", [(set FR32:$dst, fp32imm0)]>, Requires<[HasSSE1]>, TB, OpSize; My question is

When the coalescer is run with -join-cross-class-copies it needs to determine the register class of the joined virtual registers. The new register class must be compatible with both old register classes. The current implementation chooses the register class with the larger spill size, or the less populous class. This works with the current targets, but it can produce illegal machine code