similar to: [LLVMdev] Possible CellSPU Bug?

David Greene wrote: > class XSHWVecInst<ValueType in_vectype, ValueType out_vectype>: > def v4i32: XSHWVecInst<v4i32, v8i16>; > Is this pattern as intended, or did I find a real problem? Looks like a bug to me. xshw (extend signed half-word(16bits) to word(32bits)) takes a v8i16 and produces a v4i32. This has likely gone unnoticed as there is only one type of vector

Kalle Raiskila <kalle.raiskila at nokia.com> writes: > Looks like a bug to me. xshw (extend signed half-word(16bits) to > word(32bits)) takes a v8i16 and produces a v4i32. This has likely gone > unnoticed as there is only one type of vector register class (i.e. > VECREG) that is used for all vectors. > > Nice catch :) Are there more of these? I don't know. I stopped

Hi, I've read as much as I can regarding the many problems people seem to have with -delete and none of the solutions seems to work for me. I have tried all combinations of using the trailing slash but it seems to have no effect. Does anyone know if -delete can work with -files-from? Here's the code: DIR="/mnt/backup/machine/oracle" FILES=".test_files.files"

On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Christopher Lamb wrote: > >> I noticed that the TableGen code emitter generator assumes that >> the instruction fields are declared in the instruction format in >> the same order that operands are defined. This seems like a bad >> dependence to me, and that TableGen should match

I am trying to add support for select_cc. In ARM it can be implemented with: mov $dst, $falseVal cmp $a, $b moveq $dst, $trueVal My current strategy is to expand select_cc in two ARM nodes: ARM::SELECT and ARM::CMP. The two nodes would be connected by a flag edge. ARM::CMP would then expand to "cmp $a, $b". This instruction has no results. It only alters the CPSR (current program

The only multiplication instruction on my target CPU is multiply-and-accumulate. The result goes into a special register that can destructively read at the end of a sequence of multiply-adds. The following sequence is required to so a simple multiply: acc r0 # clear accumulator, discarding its value (r0 reads as 0, and sinks writes) mac rSRC1, rSRC2 # multiply sources, store

On Apr 16, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Greg McGary wrote: > The only multiplication instruction on my target CPU is > multiply-and-accumulate. The result goes into a special register that > can destructively read at the end of a sequence of multiply-adds. The > following sequence is required to so a simple multiply: > > acc r0 # clear accumulator, discarding its value (r0 reads as

On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Scott Michel wrote: > I was able to resolve my previous question about dealing with custom > loads/stores, and following Chris' suggestion, the IBM Cell SPU > backend > can generate code for "int main(void) { return 0; }" without crashing > llc. There's a lot of work still to be done... like getting frame > offsets correctly

I was able to resolve my previous question about dealing with custom loads/stores, and following Chris' suggestion, the IBM Cell SPU backend can generate code for "int main(void) { return 0; }" without crashing llc. There's a lot of work still to be done... like getting frame offsets correctly computed and hauling in the raft of intrinsics that the Cell SDK defines. Three quick

Hello, some months ago i wrote to the mailing list asking some questions about register pairing, i've been experimenting several things with the help i got back then. Some background first: this issue is for a backend for an 8bit microcontroller with only 8bit regs, however it has a few 16bit instructions that only work with fixed register pairs, so it doesnt allow all combinations of regs.

Hello, I have a minimal testcase which crashes RegisterCoalescer in my out-of-tree target. It only crashes in Debug builds of llc---not in Release builds. Also, interesting to note that the x86 backend lowers this same testcase successfully. I did a quick search of bugs.llvm.org and found no matches. This implies that the problem is in my backend and/or how my backend interacts with

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: >> - How does one deal with multiple instruction sequences in a pattern? >> To load a constant is a two instruction sequence, but both >> instructions only take two operands (assume that r3 is a 32-bit >> register): >> >> ilhu $3, 45 # r3 = (45 << 16) >> iohl $3, 5 # r3 |= 5

Hello, I have been studying LLVM and started to create a new backend for a new RISC architecture. Now I need some help to get forward with my project. I'm quite new to compiling techniques so I'm sorry for the stupid questions. Question 1: My idea is to lower the select SDNode as follows: %res1 = %falseVal %res2 = setc %trueVal, %condition Where setc is conditional mov. The

I have two problems where I've come up with some code that will do the analysis that I want, but it looks pretty clumsy. In the first case, I calculate the variance on five different columns for each of 14 clusters and get them into one matrix. I get the job done, but I would have thought that it could be done in one or two lines, not six, and be generalized so that it didn't matter how

On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Christopher Lamb wrote: > I noticed that the TableGen code emitter generator assumes that the > instruction fields are declared in the instruction format in the > same order that operands are defined. This seems like a bad > dependence to me, and that TableGen should match the name of field > declared in the instruction with the name of the

Hello, My out-of-tree target features some high latency instructions (let's call them FXLV). When an FXLV issues, it reserves its destination register and execution continues; if a subsequent instruction attempts to read or write that register, the pipline will stall until the FXLV completes. I have attempted to encode this constraint in the machine scheduler (excerpt at bottom of email).

Hi all, I am working on a target that has support for v4i16 vectors, and no support for v4i8 / v8i8 / v8i16 V4i8 is promoted to v4i16 which is nice V8i16 is split to 2 x v4i16 which is nice as well Now v8i8 is scalarized, which is not so nice. Ideally I would like v8i8 to be first promoted to v8i16 then split to 2xv4i16 (or split to 2xV4i8 then promoted to 2xv4i16) Is there a way to achieve

I noticed that the TableGen code emitter generator assumes that the instruction fields are declared in the instruction format in the same order that operands are defined. This seems like a bad dependence to me, and that TableGen should match the name of field declared in the instruction with the name of the operand in order to determine which operand of the MI to use . See

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Nate Begeman <natebegeman at me.com> wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > In my opinion, the proper direction for shuffles is: >> >> 1. Back out your patch. >> 2. Move the functionality of "is splat" etc to method somewhere, e.g. >> on SDNode. >> 3. Introduce a new

Here's a working testcase: ; ModuleID = '/tmp/crtbegin.bc' target datalayout = "E-p:32:32:128-i1:8:128-i8:8:128-i16:16:128-i32:32:128-i64:32:128-f32:32:128-f64:64:128-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:128-s0:128:128" target triple = "spu" @__dso_handle = hidden global i8* null, align 16 ; <i8**> [#uses=0] @__CTOR_LIST__ = internal global [1 x void