similar to: [LLVMdev] Setting priority in instruction selection

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I am having a problem with instruction selection with pattern fragments. > > With my custom target, in order to simplify code generation patterns, I do > not allow a constant to be used in an instruction(mainly because they have > declare before use semantics). > > > > Now the

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 7:15 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Setting priority in instruction selection > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> > wrote: > > I am having a problem

I do not have access to a subtraction routine, as it is considered add with negation on the second parameter, so I have this pattern: // integer subtraction // a - b ==> a + (-b) def ISUB : Pat<(sub GPRI32:$src0, GPRI32:$src1), (IADD GPRI32:$src0, (INEGATE GPRI32:$src1))>; I am attemping to do 64 bit integer shifts and using the following pattern: def LSHL :

I am not sure what you are looking to do. Please provide a mark up example. Evan On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > Is there currently a way to use a pattern inside of another pattern? > > Micah Villmow > Systems Engineer > Advanced Technology & Performance > Advanced Micro Devices Inc. > 4555 Great America Pkwy, > Santa Clara, CA. 95054 > P:

Is there currently a way to use a pattern inside of another pattern? Micah Villmow Systems Engineer Advanced Technology & Performance Advanced Micro Devices Inc. 4555 Great America Pkwy, Santa Clara, CA. 95054 P: 408-572-6219 F: 408-572-6596 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I am trying to make some modifications to our code generator that will produce better code, but require adding new patterns. What I am trying to do is take a register/register pattern and change it to a register/immediate. So for example, I have this pattern: class ILFormat<ILOpCode op, dag outs, dag ins, string asmstr, list<dag> pattern> : Instruction { let Namespace =

Bill, Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to reduce redundant code. For example: multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node> { def _i8 : Pat<(sub GPRI8:$src0, GPRI8:$src1), (ADD_i8 GPRI8:$src0, (NEGATE_i8 GPRI8:$src1))>; def _i32 : Pat<(sub

Micah, I don't see anything wrong with this offhand. Have you tried getting the debug output from llc -debug, and matching it up with the state machine in your DAGISel.inc to see at what step the auto-generated matcher is failing to match your and-with-immediate? -Owen On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:07 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I am trying to make

I'm not at the machine that has the changes, but it was failing at index 0. Micah From: Owen Anderson [mailto:resistor at mac.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 3:35 PM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Tablegen to match a literal in an instruction Micah, I don't see anything wrong with this offhand. Have you tried getting the debug output

Right, it's failing when it tries to materialize a move of a constant into a register. But it's only trying to do that because it previously failed to fold the constant into the AND. What you need to do is step through the path it takes when matching the AND node, and try to figure out why it ends up selecting the register-register version rather than the register-immediate version.

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Bill, > Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that > define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to > reduce redundant code. > For example: > multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node> > { > def _i8 : Pat<(sub

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Fabian Scheler > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:12 AM > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: [LLVMdev] More Back-End Porting Troubles > > Hi LLVM-Folks, > > as mentioned in an earlier post >

I am attempting to match setcc using tablegen w/ the following patterns: def FEQ : Instruction<(outs GPRF32:$dst), (ins GPRF32:$src0, GPRF32:$src1), "eq $dst, $src0, $src1", [(set GPRF32:$dst, (seteq GPRF32:$src0, GPRF32:$src1))]>; And it is failing stating that the result must be an integer. Is there a way around this other than modifying TargetSelectionDAG.td? Also,

Hi, first of all: thanks for your kind, very helpful and unbelievable fast response! >> as mentioned in an earlier post >> (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-July/051677.html) I >> am currently working on a Back-End for the TriCore processor. >> Currently, I am struggling as LLVM could not select zext and load, for >> instance, so some of the testcases

That's how ISD::SETCC is specified. If you want to change that for your target, you should custom lower these nodes to target nodes. Then you can specify your own SDNode with your own SDTypeProfile. Evan On Oct 24, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I am attempting to match setcc using tablegen w/ the following > patterns: > def FEQ : Instruction<(outs

Is there a way to define a multi-class pattern in tablegen? Thanks, Micah Villmow Systems Engineer Advanced Technology & Performance Advanced Micro Devices Inc. S1-609 One AMD Place Sunnyvale, CA. 94085 P: 408-749-3966 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Is there a way to define a multi-class pattern in tablegen? > Yes. See "multiclass" and "defm" in, say, X86Instr64bit.td, et al. -bw

I have ran across a case where the function isIdenticalTo is return true for instructions that are not equivalent. The instructions in question are load/store instructions, and is causing a problem with MachineBranchFolding. The problem is this, I have two branches of a switch statement that are identical, except for the size of the store. Here is some cut-down LLVM-IR to showcase the issue:

On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I have ran across a case where the function isIdenticalTo is return true for instructions that are not equivalent. The instructions in question are load/store instructions, and is causing a problem with MachineBranchFolding. The problem is this, I have two branches of a switch statement that are identical, except for the size of the store.

Hi LLVM-Folks, as mentioned in an earlier post (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-July/051677.html) I am currently working on a Back-End for the TriCore processor. Currently, I am struggling as LLVM could not select zext and load, for instance, so some of the testcases in test/CodeGen/Generic are not successfully compiled by my back-end. Furthermore, I am completely puzzled by the