similar to: [LLVMdev] Floating point comparison doubt

what C code would produce the following when soft float is enabled? (RTLIB::UO_F32, "__unordsf2"); (RTLIB::UO_F64, "__unorddf2"); (RTLIB::O_F32, "__unordsf2"); (RTLIB::O_F64, "__unorddf2"); tia. reed

Hi, In PHI node elimination pass to insert the copy in the predecessor block, there is a check if terminator is not an invoke instruction then place the copy there only. However for invoke terminator instruction a safe position is located for copy insertion. My doubt is why is this safe location search done only for invoke instruction and not for other terminators such as branch.

Sachin.Punyani at microchip.com wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In PHI node elimination pass to insert the copy in the predecessor > block, there is a check if terminator is not an invoke instruction > then place the copy there only. However for invoke terminator > instruction a safe position is located for copy insertion. > > > > My doubt is why is this safe

On Jul 3, 2009, at 4:01 AM, Sanjiv Gupta wrote: > Sachin.Punyani at microchip.com wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> In PHI node elimination pass to insert the copy in the predecessor >> block, there is a check if terminator is not an invoke instruction >> then place the copy there only. However for invoke terminator >> instruction a safe

Hi, > My target is an 8-bit target. Therefore while performing a shift (right > or left) on long (32 bits) it is legalized in 4 smaller units. After > performing the shift, this value should be stored at the same location. > So order of the stores does matter. But all 4 stores are parallel in the > code and do not have any control flow dependency between them. Therefore >

Hi, For the case, please see the ".ll" file attached. Here I am doing a right shift on 32 bits by constant amount (specifically by 8). My target is an 8-bit target. Therefore while performing a shift (right or left) on long (32 bits) it is legalized in 4 smaller units. After performing the shift, this value should be stored at the same location. So order of the stores does

Hi, When expanding multiply operation in LegalizeTypes LLVM generates some nodes such as UMUL_LOHI (please refer file LegalizeIntegerTypes.cpp - function - ExpandIntegerResult). However while lowering this operation in LegalizeDAG (please refer file LegalizeDAG.cpp - function - LegalizeOp) the comment says "These nodes will only be produced by target-specific lowering.....".

Hi Lang, Thanks for your inputs on the problem. I was just curious to know if you got any opportunity to work on the solution for this. Regards Sachin > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Sachin.Punyani at microchip.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Crash

Hi, Probably I did not mention my question correctly. I need to emit declarations of the libcalls (that are made in the current module) at the beginning of the assembly file. The class "Module" does not maintain any list of the libcalls made during the program. Although, it maintains lists of all the global variables and functions in the current module. Traversing each

Hi Reed, Sorry about the off-list reply. I need to reset my list preferences. If I build: cmp.c: int cmp_single(float a) { return (a != a) ? 1 : 0; } int cmp_double(double a) { return (a != a) ? 1 : 0; } with clang -target mips-unknown -S cmp.c I get calls to __unordsf2 and __unorddf2. Pete

Hi Sachin, llvm-dev, I've just committed a new PBQP solver which, among other things, should take care of this bug. Please let me know how it works out for you. Cheers, Lang. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sachin, > > Yes. Bernhard Scholz and I have just discussed a fix for this. I hope to > commit it in the next few days. I

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, <Sachin.Punyani at microchip.com> wrote: > 2) Why is custom legalization of this node not allowed? No target has needed it so far. Why do you need it? > 3) My target does not have any instruction directly matching to this > operation. How should this node be legalized? If your target doesn't have this operation, you should mark

Hi Sachin, Yes. Bernhard Scholz and I have just discussed a fix for this. I hope to commit it in the next few days. I will let you know as soon as it goes in to the mainline. Regards, Lang. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:34 PM, <Sachin.Punyani at microchip.com> wrote: > Hi Lang, > > Thanks for your inputs on the problem. I was just curious to know if you > got any opportunity to

Hi Sachin, Confirmed: This is being caused by a subtle issue in the heuristic PBQP solver. Specifically: R1/R2 reductions as currently implemented can, on rare occasions, lead to the heuristic solver failing to find a finite cost solution, even though one exists. The infinite cost solution will always be in violation of some rule of register allocation (failing to handle an interference, or

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Bill Wendling > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 4:38 AM > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:12 AM, <Sachin.Punyani at microchip.com> wrote: > > What changes would be required in LLVM to support illegal pointer type? > > > Hi Sachin, >

Hi Sachin, The declaration of functions called via the "call" instruction is a GlobalValue in your Module. You can go through all of the GlobalValues, look for those that are Function declarations (use the "Function::isDeclaration()" method), and then placing them in the appropriate place in your assembly file. Would that work? -bw On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:23 AM,

Thanks Lang! I think we can use linear scan as work around for short term. Thanks for your help. Regards Sachin > -----Original Message----- > From: Lang Hames [mailto:lhames at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:08 AM > To: Sachin Punyani - I00202 > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Crash in PBQP register allocator > > Hi Sachin, >

> Hi Sachin, > > The declaration of functions called via the "call" instruction is a > GlobalValue in your Module. You can go through all of the > GlobalValues, look for those that are Function declarations (use the > "Function::isDeclaration()" method), and then placing them in the > appropriate place in your assembly file. > > Would that work? Hi

On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 08:50 -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:31 AM, <Sachin.Punyani at microchip.com> wrote: > > assert(Res.getValueType() == N->getValueType(0) && N->getNumValues() == 1 && > > "Invalid operand expansion"); > > > > LOAD node has two values but the assertion checks N->getNumValues() == 1 >

I am assuming a 16-bit value will be stored in a pair of 8-bit registers? If so, add pseudo register which represent pairs of 8-bit registers. Add them to a pseudo register class. This allows you to mark i16 "legal". The difficult part is then to figure out how to lower these 16-bit operations into 8-bit ones. You probably need to custom lower a bunch of them with target