similar to: [LLVMdev] x86 Intel Syntax and MASM 9.x

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Gaster, Benedict<Benedict.Gaster at amd.com> wrote: > I would like to use the LLVM x86 code generator to emit Intel syntax that is > compatible with Microsoft’s MASM 9.x. Taking the TOT LLVM, from last week, I > have found a number of changes that are required to make this work, most of > which are straight forward but a couple I wanted to check

Hi, I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, to save some time. But when I look into the X86InstrInfo.td, I have a very strong feeling that it is one of the most complex instruction set descriptions compared to other targets. I can imagine that this is due to the complexity of X86's

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. > Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, > to save some time. Ok. Note that the X86 backend is one of the most complex though, because it supports several subtargets and ABIs, which makes it more complex than some other targets. >

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.

Hi All, I've developed a pass to render machine functions as HTML pages with some accompanying information about liveness and register pressure. Current features: Renders machine functions, optionally displaying estimated register pressure for selected register classes, and liveness for selected intervals. The following command line options can be used to enable and customise the

Hi, This patch fixes outs/ins of MOV16mr instruction of X86. Thanks. diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td b/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td index e9a0431..f5b2064 100644 --- a/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td +++ b/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td @@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@ let SchedRW = [WriteStore] in { def MOV8mr : I<0x88, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins i8mem :$dst, GR8 :$src),

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for your answer! Chris Lattner wrote: >> 1. Why does X86 instruction set description provide different >> descriptions for the same instructions, which differ only in the size >> of operands? >> E.g. >> >> def MOV8rm : I<0x8A, MRMSrcMem, (ops GR8 :$dst, i8mem :$src), >> "mov{b} {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}",

Hi I'm returning to my MC6809 back-end from a health-related hiatus. The assembler is tantalisingly close, but I've got some parsing and matching problems. The register set; these overlap in annoying ways, for instance, two instructions TFR and EXG each have a single opcode, and the post-byte specifies which registers are to be involved, but the registers can be 8- or 16-bit, and 2 of

Hi, while writing my register allocator, I have come across a case which confuses me because the llvm definition cannot be mapped to machine code. For instance I come across (1) and I reduce it to (2). However a copy instruction cannot move from EDX to CX. What mechanics in LLVM will tell me that I cannot make this move during register allocation, or how can I tell from (1) that I cannot execute

On Nov 8, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Jeff Kunkel wrote: > Hi, while writing my register allocator, I have come across a case which confuses me because the llvm definition cannot be mapped to machine code. > > For instance I come across (1) and I reduce it to (2). However a copy instruction cannot move from EDX to CX. What mechanics in LLVM will tell me that I cannot make this move during

>I am assuming a 16-bit value will be stored in a pair of 8-bit > registers? One related question is how to make sure that the correct register pair is allocated to the16-bit quantity when using two 8-bit operations. In other words, how we can make sure that the 16-bit pointer is stored into [AH, AL] and not in [AH, BL] ? i.e. GR8 = [ AH, BH, AL, BL]; GR16 = [AX, BX] ; // AX, BX

Thanks for spelling it out, now I understand. On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Galanov, Sergey wrote: > Well, the point is CMOV_GR* are marked clobbering EFLAGS conservatively just in case they turn out to be lowered into a sequence containing XOR %reg,%reg which indeed clobbers EFLAGS. This means there might not be any instruction which actually uses this EFLAGS value. This actually looks like a

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386. GNU as supports them fine. Unfortunately, LLVM does not > support them, and barfs with: > > error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix > > Fix this problem by disambiguating it

Hello. I write backend for Z80 cpu and I have some trouble with lowering load/store nodes to different machine opcodes. Some target instructions work with specified registers (not all registers in RegisterClass). Often it's one or two registers. I don't understand how use ComplexPattern in this case. But if I don't use ComplexPattern I'll have other problems - not all

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: >>> Wouldn't it be possible and even more clean to have just one >>> description like (I use a pseudo-description here): >>> >>> def MOVrr : I<0x88, MRMDestReg, (ops (GR8|GR16|GR32) :$dst, >>> (i8mem|i16mem|i32mem):$src), >>> "mov{b} {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", []>,

Well, the point is CMOV_GR* are marked clobbering EFLAGS conservatively just in case they turn out to be lowered into a sequence containing XOR %reg,%reg which indeed clobbers EFLAGS. This means there might not be any instruction which actually uses this EFLAGS value. For an example we can look no further than the actual test which has been disabled after the fix

On Tuesday 24 November 2009 12:57, David Greene wrote: > So I can mark it as not legal but how should it be lowered? I can't > bitcast to a v2i64 because the vector sizes are different. I could > do an extract_subreg and then write a pattern to match that to MOVQ. What does this mean? def MOVSX16rr8 : I<0xBE, MRMSrcReg, (outs GR16:$dst), (ins GR8 :$src),

Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. -Jim On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra > <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: >> The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch fixes outs/ins of MOV16mr instruction of X86. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td >