similar to: [LLVMdev] make

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.

<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 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, 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 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, 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>

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, 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

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

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 Jonas, > On Apr 20, 2015, at 4:03 AM, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > > After Simple Register Coalescing. Is the code you have pasted with the PHIs feed to the register coalescer? I am trying to understand the setting to help debugging the problem. Also, what does -debug-only=regalloc tell you? Thanks, -Quentin > >

I looked at SplitKit, but I am not sure how to best do it, so it would be great if you could take a look. /Jonas On 2015-04-21 19:35, Quentin Colombet wrote: >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: >> >> >>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 05:39, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> wrote: >>> >>>

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

Hi Andy, The thing is that I was trying to build a sched graph in other places than these two standard scheduling passes. For instance, in pre-emit. I would like to reschedule a basic block on my vliw target just before assembly emission. I tried to add SUnits for hazards in an experiment, but this gave very weird errors... even while allocating extra space in SUnits vector. For some function, I

Hi, I would be happy to give it a try :-) The fact that AA was added at a later point explains the situation a bit, as much fewer SUs should end up in RejectMemNodes without it. RejectMemNodes is bad in that it mixes all the SUs together again, after having gone through the work of separating them by analyzing their underlying objects. It is also very confusing to have two "stages" of

On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:33 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jonas Paulsson" <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:22:49 AM >> Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] alias analysis in backend

Hi Jonas, When is the MachineVerifier complaining? I mean after which pass? Thanks, -Quentin > On Apr 17, 2015, at 7:17 AM, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks for answering, but the COPY is there already from after isel. It is a copy of a subreg, after a a call returning 64 bits. > > call

Hi Quentin, Jonas, Splitting fits in with PBQP reasonably well, at least conceptually. The PBQP graph is designed to be mutable, so there is no problem with updating it when splitting. As I see it, there are two logical places to integrate splitting into PBQP: 1) Split during spilling -- If a PBQP solution selects the spill option for a node, rather than spill immediately, split the interval

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Jonas Paulsson" <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 2:33:52 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] alias analysis in backend > > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:33 AM,

Hi Jonas, > It is interesting to find this in the ARM backend, considering your answer. The ARM backend doesn't use the DFA packetizer. It's only used by Hexagon. At this point, there is no plan to address thisin the DFA packetizer since none of the supported targets needthe functionality. Thanks -Anshu --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,