similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: AVX Intrinsics

I want to generate Haskell bindings to LLVM intrinsics. In a first attempt I wrote a little parser that reads IntrinsicsX86.td and outputs a Haskell module. E.g. the definition def int_x86_avx_max_ps_256 : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_maxps256">, Intrinsic<[llvm_v8f32_ty], [llvm_v8f32_ty, llvm_v8f32_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; is turned into

On Apr 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, David Greene wrote: > 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

Hey everyone, I'm at the point with our local AVX tree that I'm ready to move some stuff upstream. We've got most of the basic stuff implemented. The more esoteric stuff still has to be done. Because the more esoteric stuff might require some extensive changes to the existing AVX infrastructure, I suspect there might be quite a bit of church until we get things stabilized. Due to

I'd like to start moving some of our AVX work into trunk. We've got quite a bit of it implemented already. I wanted to make sure we got something that would work and remain relatively stable. Here's how I'd like to do this. First, I have some more TableGen fixes and enhancements that are prereqs for AVX templates. I'd like to get those in first. Then there are a number of

Each of the main TableGen files for the supported targets includes include "llvm/Target/Target.td" In turn, Target.td includes include "llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td" The final lines of Instrinsics.td are include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsPowerPC.td" include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td" include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsARM.td" include

Hello all - I'm trying to find the llvm intrinsic name for the VPANDNPS AVX instruction to be able to call the intrinsic directly (usually something like x86_avx2_xxx). Usually google or a search through the .td files or source turns something up, but I'm stumped with this one. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks - Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

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 Friday 01 May 2009 13:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > Right, a lot of these problems can be solved by some nice refactoring > stuff. I'm also hoping that some of the complexity in defining > shuffle matching code can be helped by making the definition of the > shuffle patterns more declarative within the td file. It would be > really nice to say that "this shuffle does a

I don't think there is an intrinsic. This is supported by native IR by looking for something like (and %a, (xor %b, -1)) On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Matt - > I think this should either be VPANDN (integer) or VANDNPS (float); there > is no "VPANDNPS". > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:32 PM,

On Nov 2, 2009, at 11:48 AM, David Greene wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I'm at the point with our local AVX tree that I'm ready to move some > stuff upstream. We've got most of the basic stuff implemented. The > more esoteric stuff still has to be done. > > Because the more esoteric stuff might require some extensive changes > to > the existing AVX

Hi all, We've been doing some work to add AVX support to the x86 backend. We'd like to contribute this to the community. We wanted to let everyone know in advance in case there are others working on this as well. If so, let's collaborate so we don't step on each other. Currently we have the basic AVX machine description support, some TableGen enhancements which I've

Hi all, I have some old code using the JIT via the LLVM-3.0-C API. I want to upgrade to newer versions of LLVM. As a simple example I wrote a C program that creates the following function and calls it: ; ModuleID = 'round-avx.bc' target triple = "x86_64-pc-linux-gnu" define void @round(<8 x float>*) { _L1: %1 = load <8 x float>* %0 %2 = call <8 x

Hello，everyone. I am very embarrassed to ask such a simple question. I want to add an intrinsics(named max_qb) in x86 backend. In include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td, I add a intrinsics (GCCBuiltin). In clang( BuiltinsX86.def ), I add a BUILTIN. And in x86 backend , I change : the X86InstrInfo.td to add def X86max_qb_flag , X86InstrArithmetic.td to add define of instruction , X86ISelLowering.cpp to

This is the first in a series of patches to move around some X86 .td file contents in preparation for starting to add AVX patterns. This is stuff that will be shared by SSE, MMX and AVX patterns. Eventually, they will all converge under one framework but in the meantime we need to do some code sharing so I want to move the common stuff into a single file. Assuming this patch looks ok, I'll

Hey, I am currently forced to create the BLENDVPS intrinsic as an external call (via Intrinsic::x86_sse41_blendvps) which has the following signature (from IntrinsicsX86.td): def int_x86_sse41_blendvps : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_blendvps">, Intrinsic<[llvm_v4f32_ty],[llvm_v4f32_ty, llvm_v4f32_ty, llvm_v4f32_ty],[IntrNoMem]> Thus, it expects the mask (first operand if

On Apr 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, David Greene wrote: > Here's the big RFC. > > > Of course we would not transition away from X86InstrSSE.td until > X86InstrSIMD.td is proven to cover all current uses of SSE correctly. > > The pros of the scheme: > > * Unify all "important" x86 SIMD instructions into one framework and > provide > consistency While

On Monday 02 November 2009 13:55, Tanya Lattner wrote: > You should do incremental development on trunk. If you create a > branch, no one is going to look at those changes. Ok. but I want to be very clear what that means. It means for each AVX instruction I rip out ALL of the existing SSE support for it. So when ADD gets implemented, ADD goes away from X86InstSSE.td. As things progress,

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: > I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation > support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best > way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization > pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics > (similar to raising mallocs). >

Hello, I have a problem with pattern matching on intrinsics. I have following code in IntrinsicsX86.td: ``` let TargetPrefix = "x86" in { // All intrinsics start with "llvm.x86.". def int_x86_mpx_bndmk: Intrinsic<[llvm_x86bnd_ty], [llvm_ptr_ty, llvm_i64_ty], []>; } ``` And following instruction that is generated when @llvm.x86.mpx.bndmk is used in code:

On Thursday 17 December 2009 17:16, Nate Begeman wrote: > David, this is probably the wrong approach, based on the accreted awfulness > of the X86 shuffle lowering code, Ha! I have no issue believing this statement. :) > The correct approach is probably a rewrite based around what > AltiVec does: Canonicalize to byte ops, and write all the patterns once > rather than having to