similar to: [LLVMdev] forward branching

On Feb 17, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > On 02/17/2013 12:48 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> On Feb 16, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> That's exactly the right place. >> Really? You don't want the expansion to be optimized? You want to specify a machine model for the pseudo's

Right now inline assembler just passes through to the assembler if there is no direct object emitter. If there is a direct object emitter, it gets processed in Asm parser and MC instructions are produced. I propose that the initial parsing happen very early and the inline assembly code be replaced with a sequence of MachineInstructions in the basic block where it occurs. Then code like

On 02/17/2013 01:08 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com > <mailto:rkotler at mips.com>> wrote: > >> On 02/17/2013 12:48 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> On Feb 16, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Cameron Zwarich<zwarich at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> That's exactly the right place.

On 01/28/2014 06:29 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > Uhhhh... > > -eric > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:56 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> I would like to make the following member of AsmPrinter be protected >> >> >> void EmitInlineAsm(StringRef Str, const MDNode *LocMDNode = 0, >> InlineAsm::AsmDialect

On 02/17/2013 12:48 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > On Feb 16, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > >> That's exactly the right place. > Really? You don't want the expansion to be optimized? You want to specify a machine model for the pseudo's as if they're real instructions? You don't want to schedule or register allocate the real

I would like to make the following member of AsmPrinter be protected void EmitInlineAsm(StringRef Str, const MDNode *LocMDNode = 0, InlineAsm::AsmDialect AsmDialect = InlineAsm::AD_ATT) const; I have some stubs that I want to emit in MipsAsmParser . Are there any objections to doing this? Reed

On Feb 16, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > That's exactly the right place. Really? You don't want the expansion to be optimized? You want to specify a machine model for the pseudo's as if they're real instructions? You don't want to schedule or register allocate the real instructions? -Andy > On Feb 16, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Reed

Sounds like bundles will be the simplest to start with though I suppose I could just lower the pseudos after scheduling is done; for now. Bundles will prevent things from being able to be scheduled in more creative ways but for that I need to think more about the problem. So I can just create a bundle, insert instructions in it, and all will work more or less? I'm trying to take the next

On 01/29/2014 01:48 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >> So how do I create stubs? >> >> I have specific function stubs that I want to create. >> >> There is no direct object emitter for mips16 at this time. > Print it like any other instruction? > > Cheers, > Rafael I'd like to just check my code in and then you can look at it in it's totality and see

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > On 04/19/2013 12:43 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 09:47:28AM -0700, reed kotler wrote: >>> >>> The clean solution is probably to add two additional function >>> attributes to cover these additional pieces, namely "ax" and >>>

You are trying to do a few different things here, and a uniform solution may not work for all of them. For a fixed instruction sequence, e.g. a special kind of move-and-branch sequence used for tail calls, you probably want a pseudo. If you are trying to combine arbitrary instructions together, e.g. Thumb IT blocks, you probably want to use bundles, even if the sequences are a fixed length. I

I see what my problem is here.... I'll continue to move further. Seems like Richards fix is still okay. On 02/25/2014 02:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:

On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: >>>> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at

On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> I need to leave soon and will take a look in the morning. >> >> I did look at the autoconf input files configure.ac >> >> There is a disable-zlib but not a disable-valgrind, even though it seems >> like there used to be.

On 06/10/2014 05:51 PM, Pete Cooper wrote: > Hi Reed > > You can do this on the instruction itself by telling it 2 operands > must be the same register. For example, from X86: > > let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in > defm INSERTPS : SS41I_insertf32<0x21, "insertps">; > > Thanks, Hi Pete, Sorry. I should have been more specific. I'm

If you can't make an executable test from C or C++ code then how do you know something works. Just by examination of the .s? On 09/30/2014 03:18 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > If I wanted to call this function that they generated by hand, from C or > C+ code, how would that be done? > > if have seen cases where a real boolean gets generated but it was > something fairly involved.

Okay. Cool. So do you bootrstrap and verify as part of the usual testing? Do the nightly scripts do this? Reed On 06/28/2012 11:08 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Reed Kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > >> On 06/27/2012 05:00 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:24 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote:

I used the A9 schedule as an example: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/ARM/ARMScheduleA9.td The documentation could use more clarity, but this is how I was able to do it to always get two specific instructions to be scheduled together. ________________________________________ From: reed kotler [rkotler at mips.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:54 PM To: Micah Villmow

Well, differences of opinion is what makes horse races. Reed On 06/04/2012 04:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 06/04/2012 03:25 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >>> I'm pretty sure neither llvm nor clang have any technical debt at all. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM, reed

FWIW, I'm putting together (hopefully to be done by the end of this weekend) a substantial refactoring of the TableGen backend API along with shiny new documentation (reStructuredText with sphinx) of all of TableGen, including documentation about how to write backends and---depending on how adventurous I get---a more detailed coverage of the syntax. Also, Reed, in your TableGen talk, IIRC,