similar to: [LLVMdev] 转发: Re: Dear Evan Chang, Re: help: about how to use tblgen to constraint operand.

I try to define a register class def GPR64 : RegisterClass<"mytarget", [i64], 64, [T0, T1.....] to simulate even/odd pair of GPR32 register. Actually, I just use GPR64 as a temporary register. My CPU just support i32 Integer type directly. I use FDR to save f64. def FDR : RegisterClass<"mytarget", [f64], 64,[FD0, FD1, ....] When I move f64 to even/odd pair register, I

hi, Dear Evan Cheng: My cpu is i32 embeded CPU. I define pseudo register pair registers. In mytargetRegisterInfo.td: def T0: RegisterWithSubRegs<"t0",[R0,R1]>; ... def GPR64 : RegisterClass<"mytarget", [i64], 64, [T0, T1.....] In mytargetISelLowering.cpp: I define i1, i8 , i16 and i32 are legal. 1. I still have problem. I save my function return double  value in

On Feb 19, 2009, at 8:26 PM, 任坤 wrote: > hi, Dear Evan Cheng: > > My cpu is i32 embeded CPU. I define pseudo register pair registers. > > In mytargetRegisterInfo.td: > def T0: RegisterWithSubRegs<"t0",[R0,R1]>; > ... > def GPR64 : RegisterClass<"mytarget", [i64], 64, [T0, T1.....] > > In mytargetISelLowering.cpp: > I define i1, i8 ,

I define a pattern to move two 32bits gpr to 64bits fpr. like arm instructure fmdrr. But I need to use an even/odd register pair to save its 2 operands. I define in mytarget.td: myfmdrr: SDTypeProfile<1, 2, [SDTCisVT<0, f64>, SDTCisVT<1, i32>,     SDTCisSameAs<1, 2>]>; def my_fmdrr : ........... def myFMDRR : ....                       (outs FPR: $result), ins(GPR:

Hi, EveryOne: I am travelling CFG with MachineFunction. So I want to sure it. (Preccessors' Number) < MachineBasicBlock's Number < (Successors's Number), Is it really? best regards. ___________________________________________________________ 好玩贺卡等你发，邮箱贺卡全新上线！ http://card.mail.cn.yahoo.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hi: I hope to cut all backedges of MachineFunction CFG, then topological sort MachineBasicBlocks. 1. MachineDominatorTree *domintree = new MachineDominatorTree(); domintree->runOnMachineFunction(mf); 2. Then travel mf one by one. When domintree->dominates(next,current) is true, there is a backedge from current node to next node. move this backedge form CFG. But I find A LOOP in

2010/1/25 任坤 <hbrenkun at yahoo.cn>: > Hi: > > I hope to cut all backedges of MachineFunction CFG, then topological sort MachineBasicBlocks. > > 1. MachineDominatorTree *domintree = new MachineDominatorTree(); > domintree->runOnMachineFunction(mf); > > 2. Then travel mf one by one. > When domintree->dominates(next,current) is true, there is a backedge

On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:52 PM, 任坤 wrote: > Hi, EveryOne: > > I am travelling CFG with MachineFunction. So I want to sure it. > (Preccessors' Number) < MachineBasicBlock's Number < (Successors's Number), Is it really? > Hi 任坤, I can't say for sure, though I don't think we make assurances that this is the case. If you want to traverse the CFG, there should

Hi, I have ported LLC to a risc cpu. It can pass benchmark that I have at current. But I want do some optimization after register alloction by adjusting register using. I scan MachineBasicBlock to analyze operand's IsKill, IsDead , IsDef attribute to get a physical register's liverange. But I get a strange case at MBB.jpg. R4 is marked <kill> at MBB0. If I scan R4's

Hi all, Can someone please explain me how to use REG_SEQUENCE in tablegen? The arch i'm writing backend for has 32-bit regs, and it has a couple of 64-bit load/store instructions which use two neighboring regs at once, which i'm trying to employ using virtual regs with subs. For example, it I want to move one 64-bit virtual reg to another, I'm trying to use the following pattern:

I am porting llvm-gcc frontend. We have ported GCC4.2 for our target. So I move *.h *.md and *.c to llvm-gcc.  I do not implement any LLVM MACRO, and use default action of llvm-gcc.  I get a new llvm-gcc for our target. But I get a bug. /******************************/ //#include <stdio.h> union MYunion {   unsigned char uc ;   int ui; } myunion; void vfu1(union MYunion  u) {     u.ui =

On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:52 PM, 任坤 wrote: > I am travelling CFG with MachineFunction. So I want to sure it. > (Preccessors' Number) < MachineBasicBlock's Number < (Successors's Number), Is it really? If the CFG contains loops, how could this be possible? Anyway, no you can't use MBB numbers for that. Perhaps you need the MachineDominatorTree analysis? Regards, /jakob

Hi 任坤, > void vfu1(union MYunion u) { > u.ui = 99; > } here u is passed by copy, so vfu1 has no externally visible effect. I think you meant: union MYunion *u > define void @vfu1(%struct.MYunion* byval align 4 %u) nounwind { Here "byval" means that a pointer to a temporary copy of u is being passed, not u itself. Thus any writes to the %u parameter have no effect

Hi, Dear Boissinot: 1. When I have irreducible CFG, I travel its nodes by DFS. search backedge for every node. After I finish one node, push it into a stack. [0, 1, 2, M] <---push. [0, 1, 2, M,...N] <---push. When resolving node M, find a edge from node N to node M, N is not in stack(M < N), It is a backedge. N is in stack(M > N), It is NOT a backedge.

On 11/11/2017 12:44 PM, Amara Emerson wrote: > >> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Aditya Nandakumar <proaditya at gmail.com >> <mailto:proaditya at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> The current DAGCombine, being constructed on top of SDAG, has a kind >>> of built-in CSE and automatic DCE. How will things change, if >>> they'll change, in

Preamble -------- While working on an IR-level optimisation completely unrelated to register allocation I happened to trigger some really strange register allocator behaviour causing a large regression in bzip2 in spec2006. I've been trying to fix that regression before getting the optimisation patch committed, because I don't want to regress spec2006, but I'm basically fumbling in

> On Nov 11, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 11/11/2017 12:44 PM, Amara Emerson wrote: >> >>> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Aditya Nandakumar <proaditya at gmail.com <mailto:proaditya at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The current DAGCombine, being constructed on top of

On Jan 14, 2010, at 6:39 PM, 任坤 wrote: > But I want do some optimization after register alloction by adjusting > register using. I scan MachineBasicBlock to analyze operand's IsKill, IsDead , IsDef attribute to get a physical register's liverange. But I get a strange case at MBB.jpg. You can also look at RegisterScavenging.cpp and MachineVerifier.cpp. They are doing the same

enableAdvancedRASplitCost() does the same thing as ConsiderLocalIntervalCost, but as a subtarget option instead of a command-line option, and as I’ve said it doesn’t help because it’s a non-local interval causing the eviction chain (RAGreedy::splitCanCauseEvictionChain only considers the local interval for a single block, and it’s unclear to me how to make it handle a non-local interval). John

Hi Akira, Micah, On 05/09/2012 21:44, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > Micah, > > Do you mean we should make GPR64 available to register allocator by > calling addRegisterClass? > > addRegisterClass(MVT::i64, &GPR64RegClass) I have a related question to this thread. Does the RA use target lowering information? Because if it doesn't, you don't need to register your i64 reg