similar to: [LLVMdev] builtin naming

Hi I am running into bunch of windows build issues. Can someone please provide help on what might be going wrong llvm\win32\Configure\..\llvm\ADT\hash_set.h 1>The system cannot find the file specified. Similarly 2>c1xx : fatal error C1083: Cannot open source file: '..\..\lib\Support\Annotation.cpp': No such file or directory thanks in advance shrey

done http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5331 shrey On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > shreyas krishnan <shreyas76 at gmail.com> writes: > >>     I am running into bunch of windows build issues. Can someone >> please provide help on what might be going wrong >> >> >>

Hi As part of a requirement that I have, I would like to have some globals reside in registers always. So these variables would not have a home location in memory. I realize the code generated would also need to be aware of this. I do have some ideas on how to change the code appropriately. But right now, I am more concerned about how to fit this requirement (sort of interprocedural) into the

Hi Everyone！ I am a newbie at llvm. So the question may be fundamental but difficult to me. I want to add an trinsics in x86 and make the following changes.I want that max_qb can find the max of two Integers and return it. In src/include/llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td : let TargetPrefix = "x86" in { def int_x86_max_qb: GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_x86_max_qb">,

I tried adding them in my backend however I run into the assertion assert((unsigned)VT.SimpleTy < sizeof(LoadExtActions[0])*4 && ExtType < array_lengthof(LoadExtActions) && "Table isn't big enough!"); What does the assertion mean ? thanks for all help!! shrey On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at

Thanks Eli, Jaffrey for the pointer! A couple of further questions if I may 1. Isnt this assuming that register being pinned to is always esi when it comes to using a calling convention. I would like to pin the register through a pass and so I dont know which registers ends up being used for a particular value before hand 2. I would also like to allocate some small aggregates into registers. I

Hi,every one. I' in trouble again. I want add a new intrinsic mapping a new instruction. I add the int_x86_max_qb as fllowing: def int_x86_max_qb: GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_x86_max_qb">, Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [llvm_i32_ty, llvm_i32_ty], [Commutative]>; BUILTIN(__builtin_x86_max_qb, "iii", "") I define the intrinsic as Pseudo instruction,it

Hi I run into an issue as part of splitting a critical edge during LICM. When a new basic block is created and needs to be added into the dominator tree, the block is already in the dominator tree. I print the dominator tree and I see it is added into the tree as child of node it is supposed to dominate. How do I debug to find out why/when its getting added into the tree. ? Tips/suggestions on

Hi I find types such as v16i32, v16f32 missing in my llvm version 2.7 So does the following page not list them http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1MVT.html is that intentional for any reason or can I just add them ? thanks shrey

Hi，every one. This problem has been bothering me for several days.I really hope that you can help me. I want to add an trinsics in X86. This trinsics can compare two numbers and return the larger. There are the changes I do as fllowing. In /tools/clang/include/clang/Basic/BuiltinsX86.def : BUILTIN(__builtin_x86_max_qb, "iii", "") In include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td : let

Hi all I am building LLVM 2.6 on VC++. I am running into this problem where even builds without any changes whatsoever causes rebuilding of certain directories like table gen of intrinsics and x86 target files. This then leads to build of the x86 codegen. Is this expected ? Any pointers to how I can avoid this? thanks shrey

thanks for the help ..I could build it with cmake generated project files Being a newbie with cmake one question, is it equivalent to configure in windows environment and so would need to be run everytime I change the source location ? thanks shrey On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:31 PM, shreyas krishnan <shreyas76 at gmail.com> wrote: > done > >

Hi, I was looking at the x86 vector intrinsics for converting half precision floating point numbers and I'm a bit confused as to why certain types were chosen. I've gone ahead and used their current definition with success but I'd like to understand why the types used with these intrinsics are done this way. For reference see ``include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td``. Here are the

Yeah. I agree that "Chain operand is needed if the intrinsic is reading / writing memory.”, Just don’t know where and how to set it up. like intrinsic “int_x86_xtest: “ def int_x86_xtest : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_xtest">, Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [], []>; “ "def X86xtest: SDNode<"X86ISD::XTEST", SDTypeProfile<1, 0,

I am sorry, I actually meant Machine Instructions - is there a way ? One use of that is I would like to be able to group instructions together and be able check their group quickly. thanks shrey On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > On Aug 13, 2011, at 11:04 AM, shreyas krishnan wrote: > >> Hi >>    Is there a way to associate

Hi if I have group of instructions that belong to same basic block, how can I determine which of these occurs the last ? thanks Shrey

Chris recently wrote up a way to do this at http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/GlobalRegisterVariables.txt On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:53 PM, shreyas krishnan<shreyas76 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi >   As part of a requirement that I have, I would like to have some > globals reside in registers always. So these variables would not have > a home location in memory. > I realize the

Hello everyone, Consider we have this following set of code: int foo() { int a,b; a = __builtin_XX(0x11); b = __builtin_XX(0x11); return a+b; } The problem currently is that LLVM eliminated the second call and copied the result from the first call into a new set of registers. Is there is a way to force LLVM to generate two explicit calls to a builtin function. The builtin takes in an integer

Hi I am running into a legalize dag issue after custom lowering a load. If someone can give me pointers that would be great. I am using llvm 2.6 When custom lowering a load, the following code gets executed. Tmp1 = TLI.LowerOperation(Tmp3, DAG); if (Tmp1.getNode()) { Tmp3 = LegalizeOp(Tmp1); Tmp4 = LegalizeOp(Tmp1.getValue(1)); <----------------- what

Thanks Eli ...I actually did that ..bumped it up by 2 that I had added. Any thing else that I might have done wrong ? I can see a different assert where it clearly depends on LAST_VALUETYPE assert((unsigned)VT.SimpleTy < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE thanks shrey On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM, shreyas