similar to: [LLVMdev] TableGen Operator Names

On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:26 AM, David Greene wrote: > I just submitted a change to TableGen to make the lisp-like operator > names more readable (as suggested by Gabor a very long time ago). Thanks for doing this! > I would also like to change the way operators are invoked. As I keep > adding more functionality, the bang invocation syntax is making things > hard to read. For

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >> Would anyone object if I changed the syntax from !operator to &operator? > > In the absence of a much better proposal, I'd prefer to just keep it the way it is. Fair enough. What would make a better proposal? I'd like to keep the syntax concise. I wonder if there is a way we could get rid of the

Hello all, I don't find anything helping me understand the llvm bang operator. In the llvm TableGen language reference, it only says: 'TableGen also has “bang operators” which have a wide variety of meanings: *'* I would be very thankful if someone can explain it to me. e.g. what does "!strconcat" or "!if" mean? Cheers ES -------------- next part --------------

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Sky Flyer <skylake007 at googlemail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I don't find anything helping me understand the llvm bang operator. In the > llvm TableGen language reference, it only says: > > 'TableGen also has “bang operators” which have a wide variety of meanings:' > > I would be very thankful if someone can explain it

Thanks Meador, The confusion point for me is that, does ! as an operator (bang operator) add any meaning to the strconcat? On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Meador Inge <meadori at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Sky Flyer <skylake007 at googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I don't find anything helping me understand

On Jan 11, 2011, at 12:27 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >>> Would anyone object if I changed the syntax from !operator to &operator? >> >> In the absence of a much better proposal, I'd prefer to just keep it the way it is. > > Fair enough. What would make a better proposal? I'd like to keep the

The TableGen language seems to be growing Lisp macros from two different directions. Che-Liang Chiou added a preprocessor with for loops, and David Greene added multidefs. It seems that some kind of macro facility is needed, perhaps we should discuss what it is supposed to look like? /jakob

Jakob Stoklund Olesen <jolesen at apple.com> writes: > The TableGen language seems to be growing Lisp macros from two > different directions. > > Che-Liang Chiou added a preprocessor with for loops, and David Greene > added multidefs. > > It seems that some kind of macro facility is needed, perhaps we should > discuss what it is supposed to look like? Don't

This is a proposal to enhance TableGen's ability to analyze and manipulate DAGs. Hopefully this will allows more complex DAGs to be built in TableGen. 1. Add a new value suffix. value(index) The value must be a DAG. The index specifies the operator or an operand, whose value is produced. The index can be 0 produce the operator 1...n produce operand by

This is the second in a series of occasional TableGen newsletters. The purpose is to inform the greater LLVM community of changes and enhancements to TableGen and its backends. * As announced previously, there are two new TableGen documents and three updated ones: TableGen Overview --- https://llvm.org/docs/TableGen/ TableGen Programmer's Reference ---

Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> writes: > David, we cannot accept the 'multidef' keyword. Please revert it. Working on it now. > We appreciate you thinking ahead about MIC, but we are against the > massive refactoring and complicated abstraction scheme. We'll never > accept those patches. How about a less massive and complicated scheme? I think we can make

I included the ability to get/set an operand by name because I thought it would be easier to copy+modify an existing DAG by specifying the name of the operand you want to replace rather than having to remember its position. For example, if you want to replace the first source, isn't it easier to specify $src than remember it's the second operand? Perhaps the people actually coding these

greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes: > The problem I solved via multidefs was this: how does one write a set of > Pat<> patterns in a generic way? > > For example, I want to be able to do this: > > defm MOVH : > vs1x_fps_binary_vv_node_rmonly< > 0x16, "movh", undef, 0, > // rr > [(undef)], >

On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Amaury Pouly wrote: > Hello, > I was fiddling with TableGen (for a use that has nothing to do with a compiler but it's doesn't matter) and TableGen triggers an assertion failure on this code (I reduced the case to the minimum, it's a parsing bug): David, can you take a look? This is related to your lisp interpreter :) -Chris > > class

On Oct 7, 2011, at 11:23 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> writes: > >> Your proposed new TableGen functionalities are interesting but it is >> clearly not where the code owners want it to go. > > Jakob at least seems interested in the for loop stuff. Am I reading you > correctly, Jakob? Having that feature would make a huge

Thank you for the work here.  This is awesome to see. Philip On 11/16/20 12:30 PM, Paul C. Anagnostopoulos via llvm-dev wrote: > This is the second in a series of occasional TableGen newsletters. The > purpose is to inform the greater LLVM community of changes and enhancements > to TableGen and its backends. > > * As announced previously, there are two new TableGen documents and

On Fri, 6 May 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td: > class X86Inst<bits<8> opcod, Format f, ImmType i, dag ops, string > AsmStr> : Instruction { > .... > dag OperandList = ops; > string AsmString = AsmStr; > } > > def MOV32mi : Ii32<0xC7, MRM0m, (ops i32mem:$dst, i32imm:$src), > "mov{l}

The macro $src, $dest used in Instruction::AsmString must be "declared" in Instruction::OperandList, right? $$ has special meaning? On 5/6/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > > llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td: > > class X86Inst<bits<8> opcod, Format f, ImmType i, dag ops, string > >

Lu Mitnick <king19880326 at gmail.com> writes: > Hello all, > > I am adding a new target into LLVM. However there is a assembler for > that target and I just want LLVM to generate assembly. I read the > document "Writing an LLVM Backend". I am wondering to know whether I > can ignore the Inst field in the following example: I'm not an expert here so I'll

Che-Liang Chiou <clchiou at gmail.com> writes: > My purpose is to eliminate copy-paste style of programming in td files > as much as possible, but only to a point that the new language > constructs do not create too much overhead/readability-downgrade. Yes! > In other words, I am targeting those low-hanging fruit of copy-paste > programmings in td files that are eliminated