similar to: [LLVMdev] Help on DAG pattern matching string

Are there any other patterns in your TD file? If so, then one of the ones before this pattern will match everything, and this pattern will never be matched. -bw On Jul 3, 2009, at 8:27 PM, Javier Martinez wrote: > Hello, > > I'm new to LLVM and I'm using it to translate from LLVM to another > language rather than emitting actual machine code. The target language > has

Hi Bill, Yes, there are other patterns. I tried commenting out all the other instructions definitions and I still get this error. After debugging TblGen I found that the second pattern is being generated as a variant of the first. I think the reason is that the PADD instruction is inheriting the commutative property from ADD defined inTargetSelectionDAG.td. The variant ends up being the same

Hello, I am new to LLVM and I am not sure whether I am writing to the right distribution list or not. Please let me know if this is not the right distribution list. Question: - I am having hard time lowering ADD instructions for different purposes. Basically, I want to have different machine instruction for pointer addition vs scalar addition. I am having hard time mapping LLVM add to my machine

That's kind of strange. It might be some type of "default". However, you probably don't want to turn off the "commutative" property, unless it really isn't commutative. I know it's painful, but it might be best just to slog through the TableGen code in a debugger, and see why it is that your stuff inherits properties from the ADD in

Hello, I am new to LLVM and I am not sure whether I am writing to the right distribution list or not. Please let me know if this is not the right distribution list. Question: - I am having hard time lowering ADD instructions for different purposes. Basically, I want to have different machine instruction for pointer addition vs scalar addition. I am having hard time mapping LLVM add to my machine

Hi, I'm trying to add the xadd instruction to the X86 back end. xadd r/m32, r32 exchanges r/m32 and r32, and loads the sum into r/m32. I'm interested in the case where the destination operand is a memory location. I've added the following entry to X86InstrInfo.td: def XADD32mr : I<0x87, MRMDestMem, (ops i32mem:$src1, R32:$src2), "xadd{l}

This code lives in DAGCombiner.cpp: ------------- // Turn 'store float 1.0, Ptr' -> 'store int 0x12345678, Ptr' if (ConstantFPSDNode *CFP = dyn_cast<ConstantFPSDNode>(Value)) { // NOTE: If the original store is volatile, this transform must not increase // the number of stores. For example, on x86-32 an f64 can be stored in one // processor operation but

Hello, Everyone > TargetSelectoinDAG.td and then why the two versions are "identical" in > TableGen's mind. That's correct. The patterns are identical since the types of operands involved are the same. DAG pattern matching is done before regalloc, there are not regclasses actually at that point, thus both patterns tries to select the same thing... -- With best regards,

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Brent Monroe wrote: > I'm trying to add the xadd instruction to the X86 back end. > xadd r/m32, r32 > exchanges r/m32 and r32, and loads the sum into r/m32. I'm > interested in the case where the destination operand is a > memory location. > > I've added the following entry to X86InstrInfo.td: > def XADD32mr : I<0x87, MRMDestMem, >

Hello LLVM Developers, We are working on extending currently available register rematerialization to include cases where sequence of multiple instructions is required to rematerialize a value. We had a discussion on this in community mailing list and link is here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/subject.html#104777 >From the above discussion and studying the code we

hi cant get wine compiled, tried the wineinstall script as user, these are the last lines :( Preparing to install default Wine registry entries... Installing default Wine registry entries... ./wineinstall: line 648: 28561 Segmentation fault $REGEDIT $DEFREG >/dev/null Registry install failed. permissions of /dev/null are 777 any ideas are welcome

Hi, I'd like to define a pseudo-instruction whose expansion will, as a side-effect, overwrite an input register's value: the pseudo-instruction ldw r1:r2, P to load 2 bytes from memory address P is to be expaneded to ld r1, P+ ld r2, P where "ld _, P+" is an instruction that loads a single byte from P, and post-increments P by one. How can I represent this behaviour in

Hi, How do "Pat" operands get matched? I am trying to follow the example given in http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#selectiondag-process In the latest trunk of ppcintrinfo.td following pattern is defined: def : Pat<(pre_store i32:$rS, iPTR:$ptrreg, iaddroff:$ptroff), (STWU $rS, iaddroff:$ptroff, $ptrreg)>; I understand that input operand list i.e. ins of

Thanks. I saw the header comments but it wasn’t clear to me what the difference between those concepts is? My slightly vague understanding is IsDef means that the register specified by this operand is set by the machine instruction. So I understand that to mean the MO will override that register? Also things like early clobber, perhaps there is another document that clarifies some of these

On 7 April 2013 14:54, Sam Parker <S.Parker3 at lboro.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Anitha, > > memri is just describing that the address contains two components, an > immediate and a register, and how to handle them in the instruction printer. > The STWU expects a memri operand, and that is what is passed from the Pat. > My confusion is how operands of STWU from "Pat

Hi Anitha, memri is just describing that the address contains two components, an immediate and a register, and how to handle them in the instruction printer. The STWU expects a memri operand, and that is what is passed from the Pat. Hope that helps, Sam On 07/04/2013 10:19, Anitha B Gollamudi wrote: > Hi, > > > How do "Pat" operands get matched? I am trying to follow

On Sun, 28 May 2017, David Chisnall wrote: >> let Constraints = "@earlyclobber $reg" in >> def LDWRdPtr : Pseudo<(outs DREGS:$reg), >> (ins PTRREGS:$ptrreg), >> "ldw\t$reg, $ptrreg", >> [(set i16:$reg, (load i16:$ptrreg))]>, >>

I can't get it to work with pattern matching. My operand is defined like so: def LDSTPtrReg : Operand<i16> { let MIOperandInfo = (ops PTRREGS); let EncoderMethod = "encodeLDSTPtrReg"; } I am able to use it in the place of PTRREGS in the definition of the LD instruction, but if I use it in an instruction matching pattern, compilation fails with the error "Unknown

I'm attempting to implement codegen support for the AVR ST/LD <http://www.atmel.com/webdoc/avrassembler/avrassembler.wb_ST.html> family of instructions. The binary encoding is not particularly consistent -- take a look at this table of variants of LD, along with their machine code representation: # load 8 bits from pointer register X into general purpose Rd ld Rd, X `1001 000d dddd

Hi Hal, Our Architecture has indirect move instruction which increments the pointer implicitly and the target only has i8 type values. So the load of i16 will be converted to two i8 target loads wherein after the first load instruction, the pointer to the first i8 address will automatically increment to point to the next i8 value. So the post increment nature is in the Target. A normal