similar to: [LLVMdev] Subsuming a memory node of a TargetGlobalAddress with a TargetConstant node

I have noticed that TargetGlobalAddress is generated for "source code" functions and TargetExternalSymbol is generated for builtins like __lshrdi3. What is the difference between TargetExternalSymbol and TargetGlobalAddress? Thanks, Rafael

Hi, For my research, I need to reshape the current ARM backend to support armv2a. Zero-extend half word load (ldrh) is not supported by armv2a, so I need to make the code generation to not generate ldrh instructions. I want to replace all those instances with a 32-bit load (ldr) and then and the result with 0xffff to mask out the upper bits. These are the modifications that I have made to

I have ran across a case where the function isIdenticalTo is return true for instructions that are not equivalent. The instructions in question are load/store instructions, and is causing a problem with MachineBranchFolding. The problem is this, I have two branches of a switch statement that are identical, except for the size of the store. Here is some cut-down LLVM-IR to showcase the issue:

On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I have ran across a case where the function isIdenticalTo is return true for instructions that are not equivalent. The instructions in question are load/store instructions, and is causing a problem with MachineBranchFolding. The problem is this, I have two branches of a switch statement that are identical, except for the size of the store.

Hi, I'm quite puzzled by a little bit of code in the DAGCombiner where it merges loads in MergeConsecutiveStores. Two 16bit loads have been merged to one 32bit load, and two 16bit stores have been combined to one 32bit store. And then the code goes like this: // Replace one of the loads with the new load. LoadSDNode *Ld = cast<LoadSDNode>(LoadNodes[0].MemNode);

Hello again. Thank you for the comments. I have written these codes. iy=function(x) { res=NULL ress=0 for (i in (1:2)) { for (xx in x[i]) { fy=function(y) (exp(-exp(y+log(xx)))*(-exp(y+log(xx)))^2)/(1-exp(-exp(y+log(xx)))) res=c(res,integrate(fy,-6.907,-1.246)$value) ress=ress+res } } return(ress) } iy(c(1,1)) integrate(fy,-6.907,-1.246)$value In 1D optimize() works perfectly on iy(). However

Here is a last example to illustrate my concern. The problem is about the lowering of node t13. Initial selection DAG: BB#0 '_start:entry' SelectionDAG has 44 nodes: t11: i16 = Constant<0> t0: ch = EntryToken t3: ch = llvm.clp.set.rspa t0, TargetConstant:i16<392>, Constant:i32<64> t5: ch = llvm.clp.set.rspb t3,

The DAG dumping will try to print some of the nodes "inline" (i.e. where they are used) to make the output more readable, so the dump of the DAG may not strictly reflect the node ordering. -Krzysztof On 5/4/2018 8:18 AM, Dominique Torette via llvm-dev wrote: > Here is a last example to illustrate my concern. > > The problem is about the lowering of node t13. > >

Hi, Is there a kind of scope mechanism in the instruction lowering pattern language in order to control where instructions are inserted or how they are later reordered during the SelectionDiag linearization? I know the glue chain that stick instructions together. But such mechanism in not provided in instruction lowering pattern. I'm facing many situations where some patterns are lowered into

Have you read http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html and http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html ? http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html#instruction-selector describes how to define a store instruction. -Eli On 7/6/2017 6:51 PM, hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev wrote: > Please correct me i m stuck at this point. > > On Jul 6, 2017 5:18 PM, "hameeza ahmed"

Hello, i am experimenting with the increase in register/ vector width to 64 elements of 32 bits instead of 16 in x86 backend. for eg. i have a loop with 65 iterations; if my IR generates v64i32 and 1 scalar, still the backend breaks the v64i32 into 4 v16i32. i want it to retain v64i32. like if there are 128 elements in loop then it should break it into 2 v64i32 instructions. in order to do this i

Krzysztof, Thanks for your interest to my questions. In order to clarify the context, here is the C source file of my test case. The 3 builtins initialize some stack pointers. They have to be executed before any other instruction. extern float fdivfaddfmul_a(float a, float b, float c, float d); volatile static float x1,x2,x3,x4; void _start(void) { float res;

also i further run the following command; llc -debug filer-knl_o3.ll and its output is attached here. by looking at the output can we say that legalization runs fine and the error is due to instruction selection/ pattern matching which is not yet implemented? so do i need to worry and try to correct it at this stage or should i move forward to implement instruction selection/ pattern matching?

Hi there, I try to JIT compile some bitcode and seeing the following error: LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: 0x28ec830: ch,glue = X86ISD::CALL 0x28ec7c0, 0x28ef900, Register:i32 %EDI, Register:i8 %AL, RegisterMask:Untyped, 0x28ec7c0:1 0x28ef900: i32 = X86ISD::Wrapper TargetGlobalAddress:i32<void (i8*, ...)* @_ZN5FooBr7xprintfEPKcz> 0 0x28ec520: i32 = TargetGlobalAddress<void (i8*, ...)*

Thank You. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, that error is from instruction selection. I think your legalization > changes worked fine. > > ~Craig > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:21 PM, hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> also i further run the following command;

Thank you. i understood how avx512 vector instructions are written in x86instravx512. i need to define my vector instructions so i wrote; def VMOV_256B_RM : I<0x6F, MRMSrcMem, (outs VR2048:$dst), (ins i32mem:$src), "vmov_256B_rm\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", [(set VR2048:$dst, (v64i32 (scalar_to_vector (loadi32 addr:$src))))],

Hi LLVM-Devs, I have managed to complete updating our sources from LLVM v4.0 to v5.0, but I am getting selection errors for 'callseq_end'. I am aware that the 'ADJCALLSTACKUP' and 'ADJCALLSTACKDOWN' patterns have changed, and have added an additional argument to the TD descriptions for these. There are interactions with 'ISD::CALL' and 'ISD::RET_FLAG',

Thank you; i have changed as follows.is it fine now? def VADD_256B : I<0xFE, MRMDestReg, (outs VR2048:$dst), (ins VR2048:$src1, VR2048:$src2), "VADD_256B\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", [(set VR2048:$dst, (add VR2048:$src1, VR2048:$src2))]]>; Also here i have changed class RI to I. Does it make any difference? On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Craig Topper

hi Tim,guys, it was regarding splitting 16-bit ADDC to two 8-bit ADDC+ADDE. the 8-bit ADDE instruction is defined as: let Constraints="$dst=$op0",mayStore=1, hasSideEffects=0,neverHasSideEffects=1 in def ADDErm: myInstr <0x0, (outs Intregs:$dst) (ins Intregs:$op0,MEMi:$op1), "", [set IntRegs:$dest (adde IntRegs:$op0, (load ADDRi:$op1))] > very unlucky, this

Thank You. I have seen the opcode is 8 bits and all the combinations are already used in llvm x86. Now what to do? On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes its an opcode conflict. You'll have to look through Intel documents > and find an unused opcode. I've only added instructions based on a real > spec so I don't know