similar to: [LLVMdev] Questions of instruction target description of MSP430

Hi, 1. This instruction is not selected automatically by the instruction selector. The instruction combine / select stages insert registercopies, and they are expanded later on by the copyRegToReg() function provided by the MSP430InstrInfo to this MOV16rr. 2. ReMaterializable means there is no need to find a way to preserve the value in a register : the instruction can be just be reissued

Hi, I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, to save some time. But when I look into the X86InstrInfo.td, I have a very strong feeling that it is one of the most complex instruction set descriptions compared to other targets. I can imagine that this is due to the complexity of X86's

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. > Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, > to save some time. Ok. Note that the X86 backend is one of the most complex though, because it supports several subtargets and ABIs, which makes it more complex than some other targets. >

Hi everyone, I practice writing target description file with MSP430 reference. I add a multiply-and-add instruction as below: let isTwoAddress=1 in { def MULADD:Pseudo<(out GR16:$dst), (ins GR16:$src1, GR16:$src2, GR16:$src3), "muladd\t{$dst, $src2, $src3}", [(set GR16:$dst, (add GR16:$src1, (mul GR16:$src2,

While migrating my codebase from llvm-2.6 to llvm-2.7, I found a different behaviour in the register allocation. I have been able to reproduce it using the msp430 backend, with the 2.7 release as well as the svn head. For the msp430, the first four parameters of a function are passed thru registers. What I observe is that if those parameters are not used inside the function, those registers can

In MyTargetRegisterInfo.td file, I defined separated register classes for general purpose registers and for the SP register: def GR16 : RegisterClass<"CPU74", [i16], 16, (add R0, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7)>; def SSP : RegisterClass<"CPU74", [i16], 16, (add SP)>; The SP can not be used in general purpose arithmetic instructions, therefore I defined the following

Hi Eli, Thanks for your response. Actually, I look a lot at the ARM and THUMB1 backend implementations, and this certainly help. My architecture also have specific instructions for SP-relative accesses in a similar way than the Thumb1. During frame lowering, specific machine instructions are emitted so there’s no issue there. Also during ISelDagToDag I am able to select the right instructions.

Hi, while writing my register allocator, I have come across a case which confuses me because the llvm definition cannot be mapped to machine code. For instance I come across (1) and I reduce it to (2). However a copy instruction cannot move from EDX to CX. What mechanics in LLVM will tell me that I cannot make this move during register allocation, or how can I tell from (1) that I cannot execute

Hi, This patch fixes outs/ins of MOV16mr instruction of X86. Thanks. diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td b/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td index e9a0431..f5b2064 100644 --- a/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td +++ b/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td @@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@ let SchedRW = [WriteStore] in { def MOV8mr : I<0x88, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins i8mem :$dst, GR8 :$src),

Hi, It seems like CodeEmitterGen gets confused when we use named suboperands. sample code: def memsrc : Operand<i16> { let PrintMethod = "printSrcMemOperand"; let MIOperandInfo = (ops GR16:$ra, i16imm:$imm_i16); let ParserMatchClass = memAsmOperand; } def LOAD16m : Inst32rri<0x0, (outs GR16:$rb), (ins memsrc:$src2), "ldi16 {$rb,

Hi, I am wondering how to specify the selection DAG patterns for instructions that use accumulator. For example multiply-accumulate instruction with one destination operand and two source operands: mac $dst, $src1, $src2 ;; $dst += $src1*$src2 Seems that it has a cycle in the pattern. So how do I specify it in the DAG? There are a few instructions in the ARM backend like this one, but the

Hi, Yuanke, Thanks for writing this up. Let me back up a bit because the scheme I proposed last week doesn't work without further modification: within a particular "configuration region" (i.e., the code in between the LDTILECFG and the TILERELEASE (or next LDTILECFG)), each tile register can only be used with one shape, and in addition, no register can have its shape changed

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Apr 16, 2009, at 3:17 PM, Greg McGary wrote: > >> Is there some optimizer knob I'm not turning properly? In more complex >> cases, GCC does poorly with two-address operand choices and so bloats >> the code with unnecessary register moves. I have high hopes LLVM >> can do better, so this result for a simple case is bothersome. >>

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for your answer! Chris Lattner wrote: >> 1. Why does X86 instruction set description provide different >> descriptions for the same instructions, which differ only in the size >> of operands? >> E.g. >> >> def MOV8rm : I<0x8A, MRMSrcMem, (ops GR8 :$dst, i8mem :$src), >> "mov{b} {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}",

Hi everyone I'm hitting an assertion in PHIElimination.cpp:375. "Terminator instructions cannot use virtual registers unless" "they are the first terminator in a block!" I was looking at the code around that location a bit and have not found a reason why this assertion has to hold, except for a comment: // In our final twist, we have to decide which instruction

Hello. I write backend for Z80 cpu and I have some trouble with lowering load/store nodes to different machine opcodes. Some target instructions work with specified registers (not all registers in RegisterClass). Often it's one or two registers. I don't understand how use ComplexPattern in this case. But if I don't use ComplexPattern I'll have other problems - not all

On 9/4/20 3:37 AM, Luo, Yuanke wrote: > > Hi Hal, > > Thank you for the ideas that help us to improve the design, and sorry > for replying late. There is something I am not able to figure out and > there some special trait for tile RA. > You're quite welcome. > 1.X86RegisterInfo::getRegAllocationHints can tell RA which physical > register is preferred, but it

On Nov 8, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Jeff Kunkel wrote: > Hi, while writing my register allocator, I have come across a case which confuses me because the llvm definition cannot be mapped to machine code. > > For instance I come across (1) and I reduce it to (2). However a copy instruction cannot move from EDX to CX. What mechanics in LLVM will tell me that I cannot make this move during

Hi I'm returning to my MC6809 back-end from a health-related hiatus. The assembler is tantalisingly close, but I've got some parsing and matching problems. The register set; these overlap in annoying ways, for instance, two instructions TFR and EXG each have a single opcode, and the post-byte specifies which registers are to be involved, but the registers can be 8- or 16-bit, and 2 of

Fix typo From: Luo, Yuanke Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 9:47 PM To: 'Hal Finkel' <hfinkel at anl.gov>; Topper, Craig <craig.topper at intel.com>; Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>; Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; florian_hahn at apple.com; Lu, Hongjiu <hongjiu.lu at intel.com> Subject: RE: [llvm-dev]