similar to: [LLVMdev] Target specific intrinsic documentation

On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 3:25 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > I've run into an issue specifying intrinsics for AVX. > > Right now one can use GCCBuiltin to get automatic CBE (and other) > support for emitting intrinsics as gcc builtins.  It looks like > this: > >  def int_x86_sse3_hadd_pd : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_haddpd">, >        

I've run into an issue specifying intrinsics for AVX. Right now one can use GCCBuiltin to get automatic CBE (and other) support for emitting intrinsics as gcc builtins. It looks like this: def int_x86_sse3_hadd_pd : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_haddpd">, Intrinsic<[llvm_v2f64_ty], [llvm_v2f64_ty, llvm_v2f64_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; AVX

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: > I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation > support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best > way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization > pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics > (similar to raising mallocs). >

I can't seem to find reference to intrinsics, beyond the is_intrinsic function. I am building a backend which needs to perform some target-specific code-generation (for SSE, AVX, and NEON), and intrinsics are the standard path in the C++ API.

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <jrk at csail.mit.edu>wrote: > I can't seem to find reference to intrinsics, beyond the is_intrinsic > function. > > I am building a backend which needs to perform some target-specific > code-generation (for SSE, AVX, and NEON), and intrinsics are the > standard path in the C++ API. > What happens if you just

On Apr 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, David Greene wrote: > Here's the big RFC. > > A I've gone through and designed patterns for AVX, I quickly > realized that the > existing SSE pattern specification, while functional, is less than > ideal in > terms of maintenance. In particular, a number of nearly-identical > patterns > are specified all over for

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I'm working on intrinsics for my backend and require intrinsic overloading. > Is this supported? If so, are there any examples? Some of the ARM NEON intrinsics are overloaded. -Eli

There are a few places in llvm's generic codegen that refer to target specific intrinsics. This is bad layering and we shouldn't do it. It also means that if we don't build a target we still have to support all of it's intrinsics and other such annoyances. The main violator of this is InstCombineCalls - I'd like to push this into the targets, and just have a case that says

Hi Zoltan, I think the bitcast operation is rather painless to use. And if you want to be able to execute it on a float vector you could try putting the and operation in a function with inline linkage and that would be all that's needed to convert over and back. BTW, bitcasting is a no-op conversion in actual code. --Sam Crow > >From: Zoltan Varga <vargaz at gmail.com>

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: >> I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation >> support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best >> way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization >> pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics

On 24 Oct 2014, at 18:17, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > I'm beginning to think that the "nice" feature 1 is not worth the two > big problems 2 and 3. If we tie Clang builds with back-end builds and > force it not to have support for other arches (because the info isn't > available if you don't build its back-end), than all that info can

Each of the main TableGen files for the supported targets includes include "llvm/Target/Target.td" In turn, Target.td includes include "llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td" The final lines of Instrinsics.td are include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsPowerPC.td" include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td" include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsARM.td" include

I'm working on intrinsics for my backend and require intrinsic overloading. Is this supported? If so, are there any examples? Thanks, Micah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100629/04db85ea/attachment.html>

All, The attached patch adds an extra hook to TargetLowering that allows a target to change the Intrinsic ID and Values associated with an intrinsic call during SelectionDAG construction. The existing getTgtMemIntrinsic hook allows a target to change the Intrinsic ID but not the associated Values. Further, we wish to use this hook for more than just memory-touching intrinsics. We would like to

Hi, I am working on fixing a bug in the x86 codegen and I need help in adding a new type of scheduling constraints. The bug I am fixing is related to SSE instruction scheduling. SSE instructions use the "mxcsr" register for selecting the desired rounding mode. This control register is set/read by an intrinsic. Currently, this intrinsic has no scheduling deps and SSE instructions are

On 20/05/2010, at 3:01 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On May 19, 2010, at 7:07 AM, o.j.sivart at gmail.com wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm interested in the impact of representing code via intrinsic functions, in contrast to via an instruction, when it comes to performing dead instruction/code elimination. As a concrete example, lets consider the simple case of the

Hi all, I think I might have found a potential bug when using SSE intrinsic and unaligned memory. Here's the code to reproduce it: #include "llvm/Module.h" #include "llvm/Intrinsics.h" #include "llvm/Instructions.h" #include "llvm/ModuleProvider.h" #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/JIT.h" #include

Here's the big RFC. A I've gone through and designed patterns for AVX, I quickly realized that the existing SSE pattern specification, while functional, is less than ideal in terms of maintenance. In particular, a number of nearly-identical patterns are specified all over for nearly-identical instructions. For example: let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in { multiclass

Hi Renato, I guess one solution could be to define LLVM max intrinsic and have LLVM backends generating the appropriate instructions (using SSE inst for x86, NEON for ARM etc.). Seb > -----Original Message----- > From: rengolin at gmail.com [mailto:rengolin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Renato Golin > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:13 PM > To: Sebastien DELDON-GNB > Cc:

On May 19, 2010, at 7:07 AM, o.j.sivart at gmail.com wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm interested in the impact of representing code via intrinsic functions, in contrast to via an instruction, when it comes to performing dead instruction/code elimination. As a concrete example, lets consider the simple case of the llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics. > > If I have some sequence (> 1)