similar to: [LLVMdev] Pat<> & tlbgen

I have a few questions about the new vector shuffle matching code in the x86 .td files. It's a big improvement over the old system and provides the context that code generation for AVX needs. This is great! I'm asking because I'm having some trouble converting some AVX patterns over to the new system. I'm getting this error from tblgen: VyPERM2F128PDirrmi: (set:isVoid

The AVX saga continues. I am attempting to write a pattern for VEXTRACTF128 but am having some problems. My attempt looks something like this: defm EXTRACTF128 : avx_fp_extract_vector_osta_node_mri_256<0x19, MRMDestReg, MRMDestMem, "extractf128", undef, X86f32, X86i32i8, // rr [(set VR128:$dst,

On Thursday 03 December 2009 13:39, David Greene wrote: > I've got the following problem in the X86 selector generated by > TableGen: > > llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86GenDAGISel.inc:91821: error: duplicate case value > llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86GenDAGISel.inc:91442: error: previously used here > > This seems to happen because of a pattern I added for VEXTRACTF128 which > uses

On May 1, 2009, at 2:47 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Friday 01 May 2009 13:46, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Right, a lot of these problems can be solved by some nice refactoring >> stuff. I'm also hoping that some of the complexity in defining >> shuffle matching code can be helped by making the definition of the >> shuffle patterns more declarative within the td file.

David Greene <dag at cray.com> writes: > In ToT, LowerVECTOR_SHUFFLE for x86 has this code: > > if (X86::isUNPCKLMask(SVOp)) > getTargetShuffleNode(getUNPCKLOpcode(VT) dl, VT, V1, V2, DAG); > > why would this not be: > > if (X86::isUNPCKLMask(SVOp)) > return SVOp; Ok, I discovered that Bruno did this in revisions 112934, 112942 and 113020 but the logs

On Thursday 03 December 2009 13:43, David Greene wrote: > Whoops, I forgot to fill in types: > > (outs VR128:$dst), (ins VR129:$src1, i32i8imm:$src2) > > [(set DSTREGCLASS:$dst, > (v4f32 (extract_subreg > (vector_shuffle > (v8f32 undef), > (v8f32 SRCREGCLASS:$src1), >

Can someone explain why TableGen can't figure this out? VCVTDQ2PS128rm: (set:isVoid VR128:v4f32:$dst, (sint_to_fp:v4f32 (bitconvert:isInt (ld:v4i32 addr:iPTR:$src)<<P:Predicate_memop>>))) llvm/tblgen: In VCVTDQ2PS128rm: Could not infer all types in pattern! The pattern as written looks like this: [(set VR128:$dst, (v4f32 (sint_to_fp (bc_memopv4i32 addr:$src))))] I'm

Here's the big RFC. A I've gone through and designed patterns for AVX, I quickly realized that the existing SSE pattern specification, while functional, is less than ideal in terms of maintenance. In particular, a number of nearly-identical patterns are specified all over for nearly-identical instructions. For example: let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in { multiclass

Hi Bruno, > Some comments: > > + // Try to synthesize horizontal adds from adds of shuffles. > + if (((Subtarget->hasSSE3()&& (VT == MVT::v4f32 || VT == MVT::v2f64)) || > + (Subtarget->hasAVX()&& (VT == MVT::v8f32 || VT == MVT::v4f64)))&& > + isHorizontalBinOp(LHS, RHS, true)) > > 1) You probably want to do something like: >

I've got the following problem in the X86 selector generated by TableGen: llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86GenDAGISel.inc:91821: error: duplicate case value llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86GenDAGISel.inc:91442: error: previously used here This seems to happen because of a pattern I added for VEXTRACTF128 which uses extract_subreg: [(set DSTREGCLASS:$dst, (DSTTYPE (extract_subreg

Hi Duncan, On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > This patch synthesizes haddps/haddpd/hsubps/hsubpd instructions from > floating > point additions and subtractions of appropriate vector shuffles.  To do this > I > introduced new x86 FHADD and FHSUB opcodes.  These need to be wired up > somehow > in the .td file to the appropriate

The output of the avx-hadd program is 3 11 7 15 Preston -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Duncan Sands Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:14 PM To: Bruno Cardoso Lopes Cc: LLVMdev Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Patch to synthesize x86 hadd instructions; need help with the tablegen bits Hi Bruno, > Some comments:

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:46 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > The AVX saga continues. > > I am attempting to write a pattern for VEXTRACTF128 but am having some > problems.  My attempt looks something like this: > > defm EXTRACTF128 : avx_fp_extract_vector_osta_node_mri_256<0x19, MRMDestReg, >                      MRMDestMem, "extractf128", undef,

Is it legal to do something like a !strconcat on a non-string entity? That is, is there some operation that will let me do this (replace SOME_CONCAT with an appropriate operator): (WARNING! Hacked-up tablegen ahead!) multiclass sse_fp_binop_bitwise_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr, SDNode OpNode> { // Vector operation emulating scalar (fp)

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: > I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation > support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best > way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization > pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics > (similar to raising mallocs). >

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: >> I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation >> support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best >> way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization >> pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics

In ToT, LowerVECTOR_SHUFFLE for x86 has this code: if (X86::isUNPCKLMask(SVOp)) getTargetShuffleNode(getUNPCKLOpcode(VT) dl, VT, V1, V2, DAG); why would this not be: if (X86::isUNPCKLMask(SVOp)) return SVOp; I'm trying to add support for VUNPCKL and am getting into trouble because the existing code ends up creating: VUNPCKLPS load load which is badness come selection

All, I've been trying to simplify the way LLVM models sub-register relationships a bit, and the X86 sub_ss and sub_sd sub-register indices are getting in the way. I want to get rid of them. These sub-registers are special, they are only mentioned here: let CompositeIndices = [(sub_ss), (sub_sd)] in { def XMM0: Register<"xmm0">, DwarfRegNum<[17, 21, 21]>; def

On Friday 01 May 2009 13:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > Right, a lot of these problems can be solved by some nice refactoring > stuff. I'm also hoping that some of the complexity in defining > shuffle matching code can be helped by making the definition of the > shuffle patterns more declarative within the td file. It would be > really nice to say that "this shuffle does a

Jakob Stoklund Olesen <jolesen at apple.com> writes: > These sub-registers are special, they are only mentioned here: > > let CompositeIndices = [(sub_ss), (sub_sd)] in { > def XMM0: Register<"xmm0">, DwarfRegNum<[17, 21, 21]>; > def XMM1: Register<"xmm1">, DwarfRegNum<[18, 22, 22]>; > ... I'm confused. Below you