similar to: [LLVMdev] Shadow returns

I am needing to return i128 as a shadow return due to abi issues on alpha.  The problem I am running into is the code for doing that with scalars (currently only used for vectors, as far as I can tell) sets the sret on the parameter.  If I just go this path, then I am setting sret on an integer pointer, which verify objects too.  LangRef doesn't say scalars are allowed to have sret set, but

Hello, I'm new to this mailing list and fixing llvm bugs for Android. Can anyone point me to any previous discussion or work related to the following bug? https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23897 I am testing my patch to llvm to make f128 values stay in SSE registers instead of being split into two i64 values. I have tried to add a register class FR128 to hold f128 values for the x86_64

On Aug 19, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > I am needing to return i128 as a shadow return due to abi issues on > alpha. The problem I am running into is the code for doing that with > scalars (currently only used for vectors, as far as I can tell) sets > the sret on the parameter. If I just go this path, then I am setting > sret on an integer pointer, which verify

On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > Darwin/ppc: > SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench [ CBE ] > From what I can see comparing 2.3 with TOT, the "cexp" function is declared like this in 2.3: declare i128 @cexp({double, double}* byval) nounwind It used to be this: declare void @cexp({double, double}* noalias sret, {double, double}* byval)

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote on 16.03.2015 17:56:20: > If you want to do it at a clang level, the right thing to do is to > fixup the ABI lowerings for pointers to keep them pointers in this case. > So this is an artifact of the way that we pass structures, and > constructing a general solution at the ABI level might be tricky. > I've cc'd Uli, who did most

On 4 January 2018 at 17:10, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the MipsCCState. Thanks for the insight Daniel, much appreciated. >> * MipsCCState: adds bool

> On 4 Jan 2018, at 10:51, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: > > On 4 January 2018 at 17:10, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the

I am seeing i128 from llvm-gcc on Alpha.  I know the calling convention for them, they are split into two registers, but I don't know if that should be handled in the frontend or the backend.  I would just as soon do it in the backend, but I didn't see any support in the new calling convention work for automatically splitting an argument into multiple registers. Is the backend the best

On 7 March 2017 at 17:58, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > Today, the vast majority of target in Clang coerce aggregates passed this > way into appropriate word-sized types. They all use their own custom > heuristics to compute the LLVM types used for the coercions. It's terrible, > but this is the current consensus. > > I would like to improve the situation

I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the MipsCCState. > On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > This question came about through reviewing work from Leslie Zhai on GlobalISel > support for RISC-V, which also motivated me to revisit code which I've always > felt was a

> From what I can see comparing 2.3 with TOT, the "cexp" function is > declared like this in 2.3: > > declare i128 @cexp({double, double}* byval) nounwind > > It used to be this: > > declare void @cexp({double, double}* noalias sret, {double, double}* > byval) nounwind The promotion from a void function with an sret argument to a function returning

Many of you are probably wondering about the status of the 2.3 release. Unfortunately, this release has been very difficult and the list of regressions very high. The list has finally dwindled down to the following regressions: Linux/x86: SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench [ JIT Codegen, JIT] MultiSource/Applications/minisat/minisat [CBE] Darwin/x86:

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Paulo J. Matos <pocmatos at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:09 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: >> I believe what you want is documented here: >> >> http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#datalayout >> > > Just a note, since it might be a bug on the backend or documentation. > It says on the

Most probably you need to properly specify the calling convention the backend is using for calling the runtime functions. Or implement the stub for udivti3 that performs the necessary argument lifting. I guess there is no standard ABI document describing the intended calling convention here, so I'd just do what mingw64 does here and make everything here compatible. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at

I'm trying to use LLVM to create compiler-rt.o on Windows. I use this command from the compiler-rt project: [nix-shell:~/downloads/llvm-project/compiler-rt]$ clang -nostdlib -S -emit-llvm lib/builtins/udivti3.c -g -target x86_64-windows -DCRT_HAS_128BIT The resulting LLVM IR is: ================================================================= ; ModuleID = 'lib/builtins/udivti3.c'

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:44 AM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info > wrote: > Most probably you need to properly specify the calling convention the > backend is using for calling the runtime functions. Thanks for the tip. Can you be more specific? Are you suggesting there is some config parameter I can set before running TargetMachineEmitToFile? Do you know what

I think from the C compiler's point of view, it is going to want it to work for any size above an i64, i.e. all the way up to an i128 so that if the user of the C compiler does this computation with __uint128_t's then it will Do The Right Thing TM. Basically, you want unsigned long a, b, c, d; .... const __uint128_t u = (__uint128_t) a + b; const unsigned long v = u >> 64; const

Yeah I had a think about it, and I think intrinsics are the wrong way to do it. So I'd say you are likely right. Bill. On 13 June 2010 04:33, Alistair Lynn <arplynn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bill- > > I think, ideally, the backend would be able to match arbitrary-precision arithmetic to add-with-carry or subtract-with-borrow through i65/i33. That would remove the need for the

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:09 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > I believe what you want is documented here: > > http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#datalayout > Just a note, since it might be a bug on the backend or documentation. It says on the documentation that size for f is either 32 or 64, however, sparc has 64 and 128. -- PMatos

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:34 PM Olivier Sallenave <ol.sall at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for your feedback. I would prefer not to write a new AA. Can't we > directly implement that traversal in BasicAA? > Can I ask why? Outside of the "well, it's another pass", i mean? BasicAA is stateless, so you can't cache, and you really don't