similar to: [LLVMdev] modifying llc asm output

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Michael Graumann<MichaelGraumann at gmx.net> wrote: > Hi > > I am trying to modify the llc in that way: > > > >         subf 3, 5, 3                                 subf 3, 5, 3 > >         stw 3, 44(1)                                stw 3, 44(1) > >                                                                # InlineAsm

Ok :-) und how can I add inlined assembly to the output? - Michael -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] Im Auftrag von Bill Wendling Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. Juni 2009 19:16 An: LLVM Developers Mailing List Betreff: Re: [LLVMdev] modifying llc asm output On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Michael Graumann<MichaelGraumann

Dear guys, I am having problem to split edges correctly. Mostly because the new basic blocks are creating infinite loops. Could someone help me fixing the code below? It is creating assembly like this one below. Block LBB1_9 was inserted to break the critical edge between blocks LBB1_3 and LBB1_8. But it changes the semantics of the original program, because, before, LBB1_8 was falling

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more > > > > like a

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more > > > > like a

Hi, Its that time of the year again. Here is the results on openSUSE 13.1 PPC64. Total of 3 failures which seems to be due the same problem (the value in brackets is the time counter from the build system): [ 3468s] /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/ppc32-vacopy.ll:21:10: error: expected string not found in input [ 3468s] ; CHECK: lwz [[REG3:[0-9]+]], {{.*}} [ 3468s]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > >

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > >

I've been playing around with llvm lately and I was wondering something about the bitcode instructions for basic arithmetic. Is there any plan to provide instructions that perform widening multiply, or add with carry? It might be written as: mulw i32 %lhs %rhs -> i64 ; widening multiply addw i32 %lhs %rhs -> i33 ; widening add addc i32 %lhs, i32 %rhs, i1 %c -> i33 ; add with carry

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4 > > > > "" > > > > (*

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4 > > > > "" > > > > (*

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > >

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > >

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > and smp_read_acquire(), But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all the confusion lays. smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. Whereas the RCpc release+acquire is weakly so, only the two

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > and smp_read_acquire(), But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all the confusion lays. smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. Whereas the RCpc release+acquire is weakly so, only the two

İsmai, Thanks for testing these. Can you please file a bug report (and CC me on it), and attach the full output of these failing tests? (When the test fails you should see the full command -- rerun it without piping the output into FileCheck). Thanks again, Hal ----- Original Message ----- > From: "İsmail Dönmez" <ismail at donmez.ws> > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > And the stuff we're confused about is how best to express the difference > > > and guarantees of these two forms of transitivity and how exactly they >

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > And the stuff we're confused about is how best to express the difference > > > and guarantees of these two forms of transitivity and how exactly they >

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:06:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:06:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On