similar to: [LLVMdev] fixed point support

<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

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.

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 existing integer types, with intrinsic functions for the operations, or some other such scheme. Introducing new types is hard work and creates a maintenance burden for

> 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

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.

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 >

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, 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

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:11 AM, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: > 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

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, [Re-cc'ing list - please hit "reply to all"! :) ] You can't just use your system C and maths libraries when cross-compiling. The C and especially math libraries make lots of assumptions about the underlying system - ABI, endianness and most importantly the assembly language for inline assembly. You will need to cross-compile a C or math library. Cheers, James From:

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

Hi, I''m a relative newbie to LARTC but I have read Matthew Marsh''s book and lurked on this list for a while.... I still seem to be missing a few key ideas here.... So... Maybe folks on the list will be kind enough to help. I have two different ISPs. Cogent and Bell. I have three different firewalls (2 PIX and 1 IPCop). And I have an Ubuntu Linux box doing LARTC for around

I have a few pass managers, but only one of them has been initialized with addPassesToEmitCode, how do I find how many passes are added to a function pass manager ? Thank you, Xin On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM, <llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > Send LLVMdev mailing list submissions to > llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide

> 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

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

I see, thanks. I used to work with GCC, which has an SSA-property verification run after each pass. It is surprising to find that LLVM does not check this! Jonas > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] subregisters, def-kill > From: stoklund at 2pi.dk > Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:39:40 -0700 > CC: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > To: jnspaulsson at hotmail.com > > > On May 19, 2011, at 7:47

On May 19, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote: > Hi, > > I am combining 16-bit registers to a 32 bit register in order to make a wide store, as per below: > > 732 %reg16506:hi16<def,dead> = COPY %reg16445<kill>; > 740 %reg16506:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16468<kill>; > 748 %r3<def,dead> = store %reg16506<kill>, %r3, > > As you can

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: > >

On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote: > The conclusion is that the StringRef::compare_numeric() is not deterministic Thanks for tracking this down. I believe we have a bug in compare_numeric() causing it to be non-transitive sometimes. It is supposed to provide a total ordering of strings. Can you find the bug? /jakob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment