similar to: [LLVMdev] fix-point support

>Hi Jonas, > >> is there any work ongoing in the area of fix-point support for LLVM? > >not as far as I know. > >> If not, what would be required to implement it? > >I assume you are talking about support for fixed point in the clang >front-end, rather than LLVM itself, since in LLVM IR presumably it >would just be represented as operations on integers, or

<retitling to be useful> LLVM shouldn't have a fixed point type class. You should just use standard integer types. Supporting fixed point and saturation should by done by adding new operations to llvm IR. If you're interested in this, I'd suggest starting by implementing these as intrinsics. If it makes sense over time we can change them to primitive instructions if there is

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Jonas Paulsson <jnspaulsson at hotmail.com> wrote: > all right, no fixed point type in LLVM :-( > > May I ask then, what could one expect from various optimizations when using > intrinsics to support the fixed point type? LTO, Value optimizations, mem ?? You'd have to implement explicit support for the new intrinsics in various places. For

Hi, all right, no fixed point type in LLVM :-( May I ask then, what could one expect from various optimizations when using intrinsics to support the fixed point type? LTO, Value optimizations, mem ?? Are you saying it is feasible to add intrinsics and some extra optimizers for these, then? Best regards, Jonas > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] fixed point types > From: clattner at apple.com >

Hi, thanks a lot for the answer. By mem, I meant optimizations that involves load/store intrinsics, eg llvm.fixPload(). What would the consequences of this be? I ask then, is there any interest at all in the LLVM community for fixed point support in the future? Are there even any local successful projects that you know of? Did you mean that fixed point support in terms of intrinsics and code

You probably meant to send this to LLVMdev as well. Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:26:03 +0100 From: Jonas Paulsson <jnspaulsson at hotmail.com> To: <edwintorok at gmail.com> Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 77, Issue 41 Yes, the new type is simply a static object managed by Type and LLVMContext. This is only referred to by Values of fixed point type.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:48, Jonas Paulsson <jnspaulsson at hotmail.com> wrote: > > May I ask then, what could one expect from various optimizations when using > intrinsics to support the fixed point type? LTO, Value optimizations, mem ?? > Can you not just lower your fixed-point operations to widen, perform normal integer operation, shift and truncate? With LLVM's

Hi, I am investigating the possibilities of incorporating fixed point support into the LLVM I/R. So far, I have experimented a bit with defining a new type, adding some instructions and extended some simple cases of optimization. What is needed is a full support of types, instructions and rewriting of optimization passes etc so as to fully incoorporate the type. We find it important to make

> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:06:48 +0100 > Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > > > Hi Jonas, > > > > > I am investigating the possibilities of incorporating fixed point > > > support into the LLVM I/R. > > > > I think you should write a rationale explaining why you want to > > introduce new types etc rather than using the

Hi, As my target supports signed / unsigned interpretation of operands, I was a bit startled to find that the LLVM I/R does not express this info of the integer operands. I want to create an eg unsigned mul if the operands are unsigned, using an intrinsic. I find that with -g, metadata is generated which seems to convey this information. Is it safe to base this type of transformation on the

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:32:42 +0100 Jonas Paulsson <jnspaulsson at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:06:48 +0100 > > Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jonas, > > > > > > > I am investigating the possibilities of incorporating fixed > > > > point support into the LLVM I/R.

> On Friday, November 26, 2010 4:32 PM > Jonas Paulsson <jnspaulsson at hotmail.com> wrote: > > Well, the reason DSP compilers would benefit from the new type, is that > fixed point numbers must not be optimized > as integers - eg if two saturated fixed point constants would overflow in > an addition operation, the result should as > well be saturated. Doing this in

Hi, is it possible to reduce link time by excluding unused target backends? I would like to type tools/llc make -target=... , and just build it for one backend. /Jonas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110311/c2179915/attachment.html>

Jonas Paulsson <jnspaulsson at hotmail.com> writes: > is it possible to reduce link time by excluding unused target backends? > > I would like to type > > tools/llc make -target=... , and just build it for one backend. If you build with configure && make, use the configure option --enable-targets. If you build with cmake && make, pass

Yes, I'm saying that the implicit-def operand that was added in this case ended up as #4, out of 6, when the operands list was reallocated in addOperand(). If addOperand was rewritten, I think it's best not to add my fix for ProcessUses(), as I wrote earlier. Jonas Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] VirtRegRewriter.cpp: LocalRewriter::ProcessUses() From: stoklund at 2pi.dk Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011

Hello all, I've been wondering why Clang doesn't generate non-temporal stores when compiling the STREAM benchmark [1] and therefore doesn't yield optimal results. It turned out that the Loop Vectorizer correctly vectorizes the arithmetic operations and also merges the loads and stores into vector operations. However it doesn't add the '!nontemporal' metadata which would

Hi, The target supports indexing by register or immediate. Multiplications are not supported by any load / store instructions. Would it be possible to make LSR aware of this? Thanks, Jonas Paulsson -----Original Message----- From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 5:59 AM To: Jonas Paulsson Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LSR pass

On Oct 7, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote: > Hi, > > I think I've found a bug in this method. > > I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. > > For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: > >

What about the coalescing - How could you schedule if you did not know which COPY's would remain/eliminated? This is why I would like to do scheduling after SimpleRegCoalesc. Jonas > Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:11:18 +0800 > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Need advice on writing scheduling pass > From: etherzhhb at gmail.com > To: stoklund at 2pi.dk > CC: jnspaulsson at hotmail.com;

Hi Jonas, I won’t have time to look at it this week after all. I’ll try to do that next week. If you do not hear back from me by end of next, do not hesitate to ping me! Cheers, -Quentin > On Apr 22, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 11:49 PM, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com