similar to: [LLVMdev] Callee prototype info in LowerCall()

On Wednesday 04 Apr 2012 12:41:49 Patrik Hägglund H wrote: > Hi Tim, > > > So I've come to the conclusion that the real flaw is LLVM > > not exposing enough information to the target-dependent > > backend code for it to do the right thing. > > We also had this problem. You might find this patch useful as a starting > point:

> what does "refuses to compile" mean? I.e. what error do you get? > Specifically I get this message when compiling with the default -mattr: Call result #2 has unhandled type i32 UNREACHABLE executed at CallingConvLower.cpp:162! 0 llc 0x0000000100a1e115 PrintStackTrace(void*) + 38 1 llc 0x0000000100a1e6d0 SignalHandler(int) + 254 2

> > what does "refuses to compile" mean? I.e. what error do you get? > Specifically I get this message when compiling with the default -mattr: Call result #2 has unhandled type i32 UNREACHABLE executed at CallingConvLower.cpp:162! 0 llc 0x0000000100a1e115 PrintStackTrace(void*) + 38 1 llc 0x0000000100a1e6d0 SignalHandler(int) + 254 2

Hello, I am working on a backend for a custom ISA that is somewhat similar to the MicroBlaze ISA so I've decided to use that as a starting point. I am trying to compile a custom ray tracer (lots of floating point) and the llvm-g++ frontend generates an fneg instruction which is not supported by the MBlaze backend in the 2.8 release. I added code to emit an fneg assembly instruction and now

Hello, Am 15.03.2011 um 19:27 schrieb Josef Spjut: > Does anyone know what common causes of "UNREACHABLE executed!" > messages are and what this message in particular means? The full > error message is the following: > > UNREACHABLE executed! > 0 llc 0x0000000100936ae2 PrintStackTrace(void*) + 34 > 1 llc 0x0000000100937603

On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming > arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major > change, > affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. > > The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, > eliminate some unnecessary

A change has just been committed that changes the interface for TargetLowering::LowerCallTo and TargetLowering::LowerCall. Instead of passing a mess of parameters to these functions, a new structure has been created that encapsulates these parameters. The motivation is that additional fields can be added to this structure (with appropriate changes to SelectionDAGBuilder for populating the new

Hello Job, I managed to resolve this same problem by using custom C++ code since as you mentioned the isSplit flag doesn't help here. There are 2 ways to analyze the arguments of a function: 1) You can get a Function pointer in LowerFormalArguments, and in LowerCall only when Callee can by dyn_casted to a GlobalAddressSDNode. By having this pointer you can then do: for

Hi Tim, > So I've come to the conclusion that the real flaw is LLVM > not exposing enough information to the target-dependent > backend code for it to do the right thing. We also had this problem. You might find this patch useful as a starting point: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-March/048266.html /Patrik Hägglund -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces

Hi Nickhil, The Legalizer expects lower'd call is the node that produce the same number of values as the non-lowered node. That's what the assertion is checking. Take a look at the LowerCall routine for any other targets. You will see that in the non-void function case, it returns a MERGE_VALUES, i.e. all the results merged along with the chain. Cheers, Evan On Nov 15, 2006, at

LLVM code base seems to be full of base/interface classes, which have methods like virtual SDValue LowerCall(SDValue Chain, SDValue Callee, CallingConv::ID CallConv, bool isVarArg, bool &isTailCall, const SmallVectorImpl<ISD::OutputArg> &Outs, const SmallVectorImpl<SDValue> &OutVals, const

Hi, I am trying to write a LowerCALL() function for my (custom) target ISA. All I need to do is map a CALL instruction directly onto an SDNode that takes an equal number of arguments (very much alike intrinsics, except that these are custom to my target.) I do not need to implement any call sequences, stack frames etc. I get the following assertion failure: llc: LegalizeDAG.cpp:834:

Hi, (Forward from cfe-commits, where some backend stuff has come up). This is an issue I've been thinking about quite a bit recently, and I agree that the biggest problem is the one below: > * The big thing still missing here is that there is no logic to check how many VFP registers have already been used for other arguments. When deciding whether to pass an argument as a homogeneous

Hi Evan, On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:17 -0800, Evan Cheng wrote: > Hi Nickhil, > > The Legalizer expects lower'd call is the node that produce the same > number of values as the non-lowered node. That's what the assertion > is checking. > > Take a look at the LowerCall routine for any other targets. You will > see that in the non-void function case, it

I had the same issue as both of you when I was implementing this for my backend. In LowerCall you can get the callee prototype info when the Callee SDValue is a GlobalAddressSDNode doing cast<Function>(G->getGlobal()) (where G is GlobalAddressSDNode *G = dyn_cast<GlobalAddressSDNode>(Callee)), but this won't work when it is a ExternalSymbolSDNode, for that case i had to add

On Wednesday 04 Apr 2012 13:27:07 Tim Northover wrote: > Putting that information in the InputArg/OutputArg and incorporating it the > CCAssignFn interface allows a more straightforward implementation in the > targets, in my view (for both our uses). It's also information that's > readily available when InputArg/OutputArgs are being constructed. In your > case: > >

> On 4 Jan 2018, at 10:51, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: > > On 4 January 2018 at 17:10, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the

I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the MipsCCState. > On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > This question came about through reviewing work from Leslie Zhai on GlobalISel > support for RISC-V, which also motivated me to revisit code which I've always > felt was a

On 4 January 2018 at 17:10, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the MipsCCState. Thanks for the insight Daniel, much appreciated. >> * MipsCCState: adds bool

Hi Josef, > Okay, I've done a lot more testing and I now have a .bc file that compiles for x86, sparc, mips but refuses to compile for the mblaze and powerPC backends because of the calling convention. Is there anyone that would know how to fix the microblaze calling convention or point me in the right direction on how to fix it? what does "refuses to compile" mean? I.e. what