similar to: [LLVMdev] DLX backend

Hello, Past few days I have been working on a DLX Target for LLVM using the Mips Target as a base. Coming along quite well, currently ran into two problems with my sample/test program. The main issue I am having is with respect to the following (Note: I have already changed ADDui from ADDiu) We have this def ADDui : ArithI<0x09, "addui", add, simm16, immSExt16>; However

Hi, Jiong, Thanks for the patch! It is a great start to support 32bit register in BPF. In the past, I have studied a little bit to see whether 32bit register support may reduce the number of unnecessary shifts on x86_64 and improve the performance. Looking through a few bpf programs and it looks like the opportunity is not great, but still nice to have if we have this capability. As you

This is the wrong code: declare <16 x float> @foo(<16 x float>) define <16 x float> @test(<16 x float> %x, <16 x float> %y) nounwind { entry: %x1 = fadd <16 x float> %x, %y %call = call <16 x float> @foo(<16 x float> %x1) nounwind %y1 = fsub <16 x float> %call, %y ret <16 x float> %y1 } ./llc -mattr=+avx

Mark, did you get anywhere with this? We have a similar issue, where a family of otherwise-identical instructions operates on different register classes depending on a non-static property -- functional unit selection in our case. I started to head down the path of using multidefs but quickly abandoned that. I had envisioned a MachineOperand that would hold the functional unit assignment, and

Hi folks, TableGen provides sufficiently rich syntax for expressing target instruction set. Nevertheless, when I wrote the PTX backend, I observed that some redundancy in TableGen can be further eliminated through macro expansion of for-loops. The semantics of a for-loop is expanding the for-loop body, and so it is equivalent to manually unroll the loop (see example #1). I believe the for-loop

2012/8/21 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>: >> This isn't really my area of expertise, but I think you're messing up >> your RegisterClass definition. Look at how ARM defines DTriple. > DTriple is untyped :) , because we do not have any valut type which > defines 3xi64. > However, the paired register needs to have type. > > Fabian, what are

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

Arnold, It is not my code per say - this is what is done in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp collectRanges(), it wants to iterate over "units" of D1 (whatever they are assumed to be), but right there it associates them with actual physical register live ranges (see the tread below), and it does it wrongly. I was trying to pinpoint exactly to where the issue is, but there are too many

Hello Jakob and everyone, I am observing an issue with MCRegUnitIterator in my back end, and trying to reverse engineer some of the table gen magic around it, but if you or someone readily knows the answer, I would highly appreciate it. Here is the problem. In my back end we have a rather simple int register file structure: // Integer registers. def R0 : Ri< 0, "r0">,

Hi Sergei, Register units != sub registers. Register units are an abstraction to describe overlapping of registers effectively. You probably wanted to use MCSubRegIterator. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hello Jakob and everyone, > > I am observing an issue with MCRegUnitIterator in my back end, and trying > to reverse

dear all, i'am working on developing new llvm compiler backend for dlx processor. I finished writing the code and i'm trying to build it. After some errors that i fixed them, i have a one that i can't find a solution for it. I wish you help me to fix it and i will be grateful. Indeed, the compilation stop at level "[ 76%] Building DlxGenAsmMatcher.inc..." with no trace ..

On Mar 25, 2007, at 7:12 AM, Christopher Lamb wrote: > While beginning to add vector registers to a back end I came across > the following problem: as soon as I define two sets of registers > that have a many-to-one mapping the live interval pass appears to > double-kill the mapped-onto register. I have the following excerpts > from my RegisterInfo.td. > > def V4R0

On 6 Dec 2012, at 07:46, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote: > The code below in lib/Target/ARM/ARMRegisterInfo.td is where you > should look into, > > // Integer registers > def R0 : ARMReg< 0, "r0">, DwarfRegNum<[0]>; > def R1 : ARMReg< 1, "r1">, DwarfRegNum<[1]>; > > ... That's the easy part. ARM (AArch32) has 16 registers

On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:17:12PM -0600, Amir Yazdanbakhsh wrote: > Hi, > > I want to increase the number of integer registers in the ARM machine. > I don't have any idea how/where I can start. Can anybody help me? The code below in lib/Target/ARM/ARMRegisterInfo.td is where you should look into, // Integer registers def R0 : ARMReg< 0, "r0">,

Dear all, in my TestRegisterInfo.td file, I defined a register like this: class TestReg<bits<6> enc, string name> : Register<name> { let HWEncoding{5-0} = enc; let Namespace = "TEST"; } def D0 : TestReg<0x01, "d0">, DwarfRegNum<[1]>; but when I compile, the result I have in TestGenAsmMatcher.inc is this: case 'd': // 7

While beginning to add vector registers to a back end I came across the following problem: as soon as I define two sets of registers that have a many-to-one mapping the live interval pass appears to double- kill the mapped-onto register. I have the following excerpts from my RegisterInfo.td. def V4R0 : R4v<0 , "V4R0 ", []>, DwarfRegNum<0>; def R0 : Rg<0 ,

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:13:53AM +0000, David Chisnall wrote: > On 6 Dec 2012, at 07:46, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote: > > > The code below in lib/Target/ARM/ARMRegisterInfo.td is where you > > should look into, > > > > // Integer registers > > def R0 : ARMReg< 0, "r0">, DwarfRegNum<[0]>; > > def R1 : ARMReg< 1,

All, I've been trying to simplify the way LLVM models sub-register relationships a bit, and the X86 sub_ss and sub_sd sub-register indices are getting in the way. I want to get rid of them. These sub-registers are special, they are only mentioned here: let CompositeIndices = [(sub_ss), (sub_sd)] in { def XMM0: Register<"xmm0">, DwarfRegNum<[17, 21, 21]>; def

Hi, I don't know if anyone else has responded to your question, but I am currently in development of a register allocator. Thank you for bringing up the fact that sub-register classes may be larger than their super-register. If this remains the case, I for one will write a transform for my allocator which will make the 16 bit register the super-register with the 8bit as the sub. At least for

Hi, While upgrading samba 4.4 to samba 4.10 I have detected taht with newer versions if you use bind-dlx config it seem that is not working by a permissions problems on new folder bind-dns on samba folder, If you change to 777 to this folder and named.conf then works, but is not secure... I have checked samba wiki and no information about this Any suggestion what could be the right