similar to: [LLVMdev] Target Constants

I added some comments here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20100426/100541.html To put a constant in memory, you should use a constant pool entry, and the constant pool infrastructure. Dan On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:23 AM, David Greene wrote: > In SelectionDAG, what's the difference between getConstant and > getTargetConstant? One creates a node with opcode

Thanks to your help I've actually made some progress... Especially the SelectionDAGNodes.h was a good hint. But there are still some things that I can't figure out: // 'mov eax, 41' Chain = DAG.getCopyToReg(Chain, DAG.getRegister(X86::EAX, MVT::i32), DAG.getConstant(41, MVT::i32), InFlag); InFlag = Chain.getValue(1); // 'inc eax' SDValue eaxVal =

On Jul 1, 2009, at 2:22 PMPDT, Dan Gohman wrote: >> Ops.push_back(DAG.getConstant(1, MVT::i32)); >> Chain = DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, DAG.getVTList(MVT::Other, MVT::i32), >> &Ops[0], Ops.size()); >> >> Isn't that the way how it is supposed to work? > > ADD does not use a chain, so there's no chain operand, or > MVT::Other result for it in an ADD

Hi James, Jim If you *really* want this to work in selection DAG then there is a solution, but its not pretty. First make i64 not be legal. Then, assuming the regclass you gave has some subregs, you can give load/store a custom legalisation where you change the i64 to MVT::Untyped. So something like this for ISD::STORE: SDValue ValueToBeStored = St.getOperand(…) auto SeqOps[] = {

> On Apr 2, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 01:35:55PM -0700, Pete Cooper wrote: >> Hi James, Jim >> >> If you *really* want this to work in selection DAG then there is a solution, but its not pretty. >> >> First make i64 not be legal. Then, assuming the regclass you gave has some subregs, you

Hello. I generated in the back end by hand (in C++ code, not with TableGen) some fancy assembly code using Inline ASM expressions and if I use 2 functions in my source code (but NOT just 1 function; I will not present the functions, but each requires me to generate an Inline ASM expression) I get this error at compilation (at scheduling): BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry

I have intrinsic with no return value and I need to match them to machine instructions. If the instruction has a return value I am able to correctly match it, but if I try to create some tablegen code that has no return value, the instruction gets deleted. Here is my profile/node/pattern. Profile: def SDTIL_BinAtomNoRet : SDTypeProfile<0, 3, [ SDTCisPtrTy<0>, SDTCisVT<1, i32>,

Hi, I'm trying to implement a target-agnostic intrinsic, first targeting X86. I'm trying to map the intrinsic SD node to an instruction with a certain target opcode that I've introduced. The issue that I'm running into is what the correct way to lower the argument is. I've done a couple loops on the docs so any help would be appreciated! Some options I've explored but have

On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I have intrinsic with no return value and I need to match them to machine instructions. If the instruction has a return value I am able to correctly match it, but if I try to create some tablegen code that has no return value, the instruction gets deleted. Hi Micah, >From your description it sounds like machine dead code elimination is

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Grosbach [mailto:grosbach at apple.com] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:41 AM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Creating tablegen patterns for intrinsics with > no return value. > > > On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > > > I have intrinsic with no

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

Here is a last example to illustrate my concern. The problem is about the lowering of node t13. Initial selection DAG: BB#0 '_start:entry' SelectionDAG has 44 nodes: t11: i16 = Constant<0> t0: ch = EntryToken t3: ch = llvm.clp.set.rspa t0, TargetConstant:i16<392>, Constant:i32<64> t5: ch = llvm.clp.set.rspb t3,

The DAG dumping will try to print some of the nodes "inline" (i.e. where they are used) to make the output more readable, so the dump of the DAG may not strictly reflect the node ordering. -Krzysztof On 5/4/2018 8:18 AM, Dominique Torette via llvm-dev wrote: > Here is a last example to illustrate my concern. > > The problem is about the lowering of node t13. > >

Krzysztof, Thanks for your interest to my questions. In order to clarify the context, here is the C source file of my test case. The 3 builtins initialize some stack pointers. They have to be executed before any other instruction. extern float fdivfaddfmul_a(float a, float b, float c, float d); volatile static float x1,x2,x3,x4; void _start(void) { float res;

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D8713, I added the 64bit integer store ("std") and load ("ldd") instructions for 32bit sparc. But now I need codegen to know how to emit them, and am not sure the best way to go about teaching the backend that 64bit integers can be used natively, but only for loads and stores. (I originally wrote an earlier draft of question in the review but it

Richard Pennington wrote: > My target doesn't support 64 bit arithmetic, so I'd like to supply > definitions for adde/addc. The problem is I can't seem to figure out the > magic. Here's an example of what I need to generate: > > # two i64s in r5/r6 and r7/r8 > # result in r1/r2, carry in r3 > > # adde > add r2, r6, r8 > cmpltu r3, r2, r6 #

Please tell me whether the following implementation is correct..... My target supports 64 bit mask means immediate(0-2^63) I have implemented it but i dont know whether its correct or not. Please see the changes below that i have made in x86isellowering.cpp static SDValue lower2048BitVectorShuffle(const SDLoc &DL, ArrayRef<int> Mask, MVT VT,

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

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