similar to: [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,

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

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

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

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

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

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 bug in the implementation. The affected function is ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit in LegalizeIntegerTypes.cpp.

Sounds like the select lowering issue is definitely separate from the FENV work. Is there a bug report with a C or IR example? You want to generate compare and branch instead of a cmov for something like this? int foo(float x) { if (x < 42.0f) return x; return 12; } define i32 @foo(float %x) { %cmp = fcmp olt float %x, 4.200000e+01 %conv = fptosi float %x to i32 %ret = select

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 >

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 =

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

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

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

Le 23/03/2012 17:02, Hal Finkel a écrit : > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:50:12 +0100 > Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Finkel, >> >> Le 23/03/2012 05:50, Hal Finkel a écrit : >>> The PowerPC backend on PPC64 for non-Darwin (SVR4 ABI) systems >>> currently has a problem handling integer types smaller than 64 bits. >>> This

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

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 simplification. There are still some issues with this patch, but does the approach look sane? -Eli -------------- next part -------------- Index: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorOps.cpp

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:50:12 +0100 Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Finkel, > > Le 23/03/2012 05:50, Hal Finkel a écrit : > > The PowerPC backend on PPC64 for non-Darwin (SVR4 ABI) systems > > currently has a problem handling integer types smaller than 64 bits. > > This is because the ABI specifies that these types are > > zero-extended

Hi Finkel, Le 23/03/2012 05:50, Hal Finkel a écrit : > The PowerPC backend on PPC64 for non-Darwin (SVR4 ABI) systems > currently has a problem handling integer types smaller than 64 bits. > This is because the ABI specifies that these types are zero-extended to > 64 bits on the stack and the default logic provided in LegalizeDAG does > not use that convention. Specifically, for

Hello LLVM, A recent commit creates the isIntDivCheap() target query. http://reviews.llvm.org/D12082 The current approach has a couple shortcomings. First, when targets decide divide is cheap, the DAGCombiner ignores obvious power-of-2 optimizations. In the targets I know, shifts are cheaper than divides in both speed and size. The target cannot see the value in the isIntDivCheap() call, so

Moro, On 5/14/19 4:36 PM, Oskar Vilkevuori wrote: > Hi there, > > Any idea? Please use these packages  https://wiki.xiph.org/Icecast_Server/Installing_latest_version_(official_Xiph_repositories) or rebuild the Debian package but with the openssl -dev package present on your machine. > > I found > from https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=744815 that >