similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: Integer saturation intrinsics

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm proposing integer saturation intrinsics. > > def int_ssat : Intrinsic<[llvm_anyint_ty], [LLVMMatchType<0>, llvm_i32_ty]>; > def int_usat : Intrinsic<[llvm_anyint_ty], [LLVMMatchType<0>, llvm_i32_ty]>; > > The first operand is the integer value

On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I'm proposing integer saturation intrinsics. >> >> def int_ssat : Intrinsic<[llvm_anyint_ty], [LLVMMatchType<0>, llvm_i32_ty]>; >> def int_usat : Intrinsic<[llvm_anyint_ty],

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm proposing integer saturation intrinsics. >>> >>> def int_ssat :

Hi all, The patches linked below introduce a new family of intrinsics, for integer saturation: @llvm.usat, and @llvm.ssat (unsigned/signed). Quoting the added documentation: %r = call i32 @llvm.ssat.i32(i32 %x, i32 %n) is equivalent to the expression min(max(x, -2^(n-1)), 2^(n-1)-1), itself implementable as the following IR: %min_sint_n = i32 ... ; the min. signed integer of

> The plan is to form calls to these intrinsics in InstCombine. Legalizer > can expand these intrinsics if they are not legal. The expansion should > be fairly straight forward and produce code that is at least as good as > what LLVM is currently generating for these code sequence. SSAT/USAT may set the Q (saturation) flag, which might cause problems for anyone relying on explicitly

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > At a very high level, why do we need these intrinsics? In short, to catch sequences you can't catch in the SelectionDAG. > What is the use case? What are typical values for N? Typically, you get this from (a little overlapping) compression, DSP, or pixel-handling code. Off the top of my

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The plan is to form calls to these intrinsics in InstCombine. Legalizer can expand these intrinsics if they are not legal. The expansion should be fairly straight forward and produce code that is at least as good as what LLVM is currently generating for these code sequence. >>>>

On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> The plan is to form calls to these intrinsics in InstCombine. Legalizer can expand these intrinsics if they are not legal. The expansion should be fairly straight forward and produce code that is at least as good as what LLVM is

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> The plan is to form calls to these intrinsics in InstCombine. Legalizer can expand these intrinsics if they are not legal. The

<table cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0' border='0' ><tr><td style='font: inherit;'>Hi,<br>I tried creating intrinsics which are to be<br>placeholders for a set of instructions (actually a section of a basic block) to be executed elsewhere(for e.g. in HW).<br>These intrinsics are to take care of the data dependencies of the set of

Hello, LLVM's intrinsic overloading mechanism does not currently support overloading on pointer types. Patches to implement this would be welcome. Dan On May 7, 2008, at 9:25 AM, aditya vishnubhotla wrote: > Hi, > I tried creating intrinsics which are to be > placeholders for a set of instructions (actually a section of a > basic block) to be executed elsewhere(for e.g. in

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:33 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > A couple of questions: > > 1) Should this really be an intrinsic and not a flag on add? The add > instruction already allows overflow to be either undefined or defined to > wrap. Making it defined to saturate seems a natural extension. > I don't think this should be a flag on

On 2018-08-22 11:32, John McCall wrote: > >> On Aug 22, 2018, at 4:38 AM, Bevin Hansson <bevin.hansson at ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2018-08-22 05:56, John McCall via llvm-dev wrote: >>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Leonard Chan <leonardchan at google.com> wrote: >>>> If we were to create a new type down the line, I

Hello everyone, I am trying to implement the max PTX builtin function. This is defined in the following way: "max.type d, a, b;" where .type can be: .type = { .u16, .u32, .u64, .s16, .s32, .s64 }; The presence of multiple types requires llvm.ptx.max to be overloaded for i16, i32 and i64. So I think that the right way to define the intrinsic would be (as in the

> On Oct 26, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Elena Demikhovsky" <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:17:49 AM >> Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Masked vector

On 2018-08-22 05:56, John McCall via llvm-dev wrote: >> On Aug 21, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Leonard Chan <leonardchan at google.com> wrote: >> If we were to create a new type down the line, I think the main >> features that would distinguish them from other types are the >> arbitrary width and scale. Saturation can be handled through >> instructions since saturation

On 01/14/2015 04:16 PM, Ahmed Bougacha wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> At a very high level, why do we need these intrinsics? > In short, to catch sequences you can't catch in the SelectionDAG. > >> What is the use case? What are typical values for N? > Typically, you get this from (a little

In IntrinsicEmitter::EmitTypeGenerate, called from IntrinsicEmitter::EmitGenerator, here for (unsigned j = 0; j != N; ++j) { OS << " ArgTys.push_back("; EmitTypeGenerate(OS, ParamTys[j], ArgNo); OS << ");\n"; } I'm hitting this assertion: if (ArgType->isSubClassOf("LLVMMatchType")) { unsigned Number =

That's a bug. I'm working on a fix.... On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > In IntrinsicEmitter::EmitTypeGenerate, called from > IntrinsicEmitter::EmitGenerator, here > for (unsigned j = 0; j != N; ++j) { > OS << " ArgTys.push_back("; > EmitTypeGenerate(OS, ParamTys[j], ArgNo); > OS << ");\n"; > }

I have this intrinsic definition for llvm. def int_opencl_math_fdistance_fast : Intrinsic<[llvm_float_ty], [llvm_anyfloat_ty, LLVMMatchType<0>]>; Can someone explain what LLVMMatchType does and how to specify it to match the first argument and not the return value? I've tried LLVMMatchType<1> but it fails in IntrinsicEmitter.cpp