similar to: [LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 400 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit"

2009 Dec 01
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Javier Martinez <javier at jmartinez.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working in adding support for 64-bit integers to my target. I'm using > LLVM to decompose the 64-bit integer operations by using 32-bit registers > wherever possible and emulating support where not. When looking at the bit > shift decomposition I saw what seems to be a
2009 Dec 01
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit
Hi Javier, > The problem is the implementation of the expansion. Perhaps an example > can help illustrate better. Take the case of a 64-bit integer shifted > left by say 6 bits and is decomposed using 32-bit registers. Because 6 > is less than the 32 (the register size) the resulting low part should be > equal to the source low part shifted left by 6 bits. The current >
2009 Dec 01
2
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit
Duncan, It seems that the code you pasted came from the function ExpandShiftByConstant and indeed it looks correct. In my example I used 6 as the shift amount but forgot to mention that it's stored in a register. Otherwise ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit wouldn't get called. Below is the execution of DAGTypeLegalizer::ExpandIntRes_Shift() using my example showing how
2009 May 21
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? >> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would >> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction
2012 Sep 03
0
[LLVMdev] branch on vector compare?
Hi Stephen, > Hi all, llvm newbie here. welcome! > I'm trying to branch based on a vector compare. I've found a slow way (below) > which goes through memory. Is there some idiom I'm missing so that it would use > for instance movmsk for SSE or vcmpgt & cr6 for altivec? I don't think you are missing anything: LLVM IR has no support for horizontal operations like
2009 Dec 01
2
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit
Hi Duncan, The problem is the implementation of the expansion. Perhaps an example can help illustrate better. Take the case of a 64-bit integer shifted left by say 6 bits and is decomposed using 32-bit registers. Because 6 is less than the 32 (the register size) the resulting low part should be equal to the source low part shifted left by 6 bits. The current implementation places a zero
2009 May 21
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? > I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would > mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction > and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you > anticipating something more
2009 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman > <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector >> >> operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from >> >> LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant
2017 Dec 13
3
inefficient for loop, is there a better way?
The code below is a small reproducible example of a much larger problem. While the script below works, it is really slow on the true dataset with many more rows and columns. I'm hoping to get the same result to examp, but with significant time savings. The example below is setting up a data.frame for an ensuing regression analysis. The purpose of the script below is to appends columns to
2013 Feb 15
1
Fitting pareto distribution / plotting observed & fitted dists
Some background: I have some data on structural dependencies in a base of code artifacts. The dependency structure is reflected in terms of relative node degrees, with each node representing some code unit (just as an example). This gives me real data of the following form (sorry for the longish posting): dat1 <- c(0.00245098039215686, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.0563725490196078, 0, 0, 0,
2009 Dec 22
2
[LLVMdev] LegalizeDAG Error?
The LegalizeDAG.cpp file has this code in SelectionDAGLegalize::PromoteNode: case ISD::BSWAP: { unsigned DiffBits = NVT.getSizeInBits() - OVT.getSizeInBits(); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, dl, NVT, Tmp1); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::BSWAP, dl, NVT, Tmp1); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::SRL, dl, NVT, Tmp1, DAG.getConstant(DiffBits, TLI.getShiftAmountTy()));
2009 Dec 22
0
[LLVMdev] LegalizeDAG Error?
On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:38 PMPST, Bill Wendling wrote: > The LegalizeDAG.cpp file has this code in > SelectionDAGLegalize::PromoteNode: > > case ISD::BSWAP: { > unsigned DiffBits = NVT.getSizeInBits() - OVT.getSizeInBits(); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, dl, NVT, Tmp1); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::BSWAP, dl, NVT, Tmp1); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::SRL, dl,
2012 Jul 30
2
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
Hrmm.... PromoteVectorOp doesn't seem to follow this at all. http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorOps.cpp SDValue VectorLegalizer::PromoteVectorOp(SDValue Op) { // Vector "promotion" is basically just bitcasting and doing the operation // in a different type. For example, x86 promotes ISD::AND on v2i32 to // v1i64. EVT VT =
2012 Jul 30
0
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
Notice that PromoteVectorOp is called after the type legalization legalized all of the types in the program. It legalizes the *operations*, not the types. So, you should only see legal types (Legal types are types that fit into your registers). So, if your target has v2i32, I suspect that v4i8 is an illegal because it has a different size. -----Original Message----- From: Villmow, Micah
2012 Jul 30
2
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
v4i8 itself is a legal type, just not on the 'AND' operation. So there seems to be multiple problems here. 1) PromoteVectorOp doesn't handle the case where the types are not the same size, this occurs because #2 2) getTypeToPromoteTo doesn't actual check to see if the type it should promote to makes any sense. 3) PromoteVectorOp also doesn't handle the case where
2012 Jul 30
0
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
If v4i8 is a legal type then getTypeToPromoteTo should return the pair v4i8 and 'legal'. This looks like the root of the problem. -----Original Message----- From: Villmow, Micah [mailto:Micah.Villmow at amd.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 22:10 To: Rotem, Nadav; Developers Mailing List Subject: RE: Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]> v4i8 itself is a legal type, just not
2013 Aug 13
1
[LLVMdev] vector type legalization
Hi Nadav, I believe the implementation to keep on widening the vector to the next power of two must be in TargetLowering.h because that is where we decide whether to Widen the vector or not, and the size to which we widen it. In this case, we stop at 4xi8 and do not check if it is legal or not. But the comment says ‘try to widen vector elements until a legal type is found’. Also, there is a
2017 Apr 21
2
[cfe-dev] FE_INEXACT being set for an exact conversion from float to unsigned long long
I think it’s generally true that whenever branches can reliably be predicted branching is faster than a cmov that involves speculative execution, and I would guess that your assessment regarding looping on input values is probably correct. I believe the code that actually creates most of the transformation you’re interested in here is in SelectionDAGLegalize::ExpandNode() in LegalizeDAG.cpp. The
2017 May 11
3
FENV_ACCESS and floating point LibFunc calls
Thanks, Andy. I'm not sure how to solve that or my case given the DAG's basic-block limit. Probably CodeGenPrepare or SelectionDAGBuilder...or we wait until after isel and try to split it up in a machine instruction pass. I filed my example here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33013 Feel free to comment there and/or open a new bug for the FP_TO_UINT case. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at
2012 Sep 02
2
[LLVMdev] branch on vector compare?
Hi all, llvm newbie here. I'm trying to branch based on a vector compare. I've found a slow way (below) which goes through memory. Is there some idiom I'm missing so that it would use for instance movmsk for SSE or vcmpgt & cr6 for altivec? Or do I need to resort to calling the intrinsic directly? Thanks, Stephen. %16 = fcmp ogt <4 x float> %15, %cr %17 =