similar to: [LLVMdev] Constraints with Subregisters

Hi, Jim. In my case the target (Tilera) doesn't have a full 32-bit mult operation and to do so it has to accumulate results from three 16-bit mults, by retaining operands and the result across in the same registers. However the ISel DAG thinks its a CSE case. Please note this is not a MAdd/MSub triad. How could I do this by defining such a sequence or the pattern in the .def file itself for

Hello Jim. Just out of curiosity, won't such mechanism work via the patterns from instructions defs? Thanks. Girish. >________________________________ > From: Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> >To: Johannes Birgmeier <e0902998 at student.tuwien.ac.at> >Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 10:33 PM

Hi Jim. I'm doing custom lowering but here I have a very basic issue and the situation is like this - [Original Op] Mul Dest, Src1, Src2 [Expanded from EmitInstrWithCustomInserter] Step1 Dest, Src1, Src2    <=== BuildMI(..., Step1, Dest).addReg(Src1).addReg(Src2) Step2 Dest, Src1, Src2    <=== BuildMI(..., Step2, Dest).addReg(Src1).addReg(Src2) Step3 Dest, Src2, Src1    <===

Ah, OK. I think I understand much better now. Thanks! You shouldn't need bundles for that sort of thing. A custom lowering or a fancy pattern should be sufficient, depending on the details of how your target is defined. For patterns, looks at the various targets use of the Pat<>, Pattern<>, ComplexPattern<> and related classes in the .td files. For examples of custom

Hi Girish, Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Can you elaborate a bit? -Jim On Dec 19, 2011, at 9:12 PM, girish gulawani wrote: > > Hello Jim. > Just out of curiosity, won't such mechanism work via the patterns from instructions defs? > > Thanks. > Girish. > > From: Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> > To: Johannes

Hi Johannes, You may be interested in the (very) recently added explicit instruction bundle support. For an example of their usage, have a look at the ARM backend's IT-block (Thumb2 predication support) pass, which uses them to tie instructions together. -Jim On Dec 17, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Johannes Birgmeier wrote: > Hello, > > I'm writing for a backend and have a complicated

Hello, I'm writing for a backend and have a complicated instruction bundle (3 instructions) that has to be executed like a single block (meaning: if the first instruction is executed, all three have to be executed to obtain the result, though not necessarily without other instructions in between). Unfortunately, MachineCSE gets in the way sometimes and rips it apart. Is there a way to

If an instruction is marked as side-effect free then it's a candidate for CSE. Try marking the instruction with hasSideEffects. Evan On Dec 17, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Johannes Birgmeier wrote: > Hello, > > I'm writing for a backend and have a complicated instruction bundle (3 > instructions) that has to be executed like a single block (meaning: if > the first instruction

Hi Evan. The hasSideEffects method I believe operates only on Inline Assembly (IA) blocks. What if such a sequence is not part of IA? Thanks. Girish. If an instruction is marked as side-effect free then it's a candidate for CSE. Try marking the instruction with hasSideEffects. > >Evan > >On Dec 17, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Johannes Birgmeier wrote: > >> Hello, >>

Hello Tom, > I took a look at lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeDAG.cpp and it > doesn't look like there is an Expand operation implemented for > ISD::Constant. I think you'll either need implement Expand for > ISD::Constant or Custom lower it in your backend. thank you for that information. This exactly is what I feared. Well I did some more mostly unguided hacking and these

Fabian, > here are the definitions of these register classes: > > // Data register class > def DR : RegisterClass<"TriCore", [i32], 32, > (add D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, > D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15)>; > > // Extended-size data register class > def ER :

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

Hi Fabian, Anton, On 22/08/2012 08:25, Fabian Scheler wrote: >>> here are the definitions of these register classes: >>> >>> // Data register class >>> def DR : RegisterClass<"TriCore", [i32], 32, >>> (add D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, >>> D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14,

> Is i64 a legal type on your target? If so, you might need to hack the > code generator a bit; no in-tree target has a legal integer type that > doesn't support shifts. If not, I have no idea how you're getting > that error. Yes, well, i64 is a legal type, that's how it is. However, i64s are always stored in two 32-bit registers and in some cases need complicated

The field Num seems to have no meaning. It is not recognized by the backend tools. It does not hurt anything but should not be there. // We have banks of 32 registers each. class MipsReg<string n> : Register<n> { field bits<5> Num; let Namespace = "Mips"; } class ARMReg<bits<4> num, string n, list<Register> subregs = []> : Register<n> {

>> here are the definitions of these register classes: >> >> // Data register class >> def DR : RegisterClass<"TriCore", [i32], 32, >> (add D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, >> D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15)>; >> >> // Extended-size data register class >> def ER :

At least or Mips, this line seems extraneous. I removed it and and all consequential uses of that (400 changes to MipsRegisterInfo.td) and make check for mips still works. Am running our full test sequence now. This Mips part of this was copied from the Sparc port. Similar problems in other ports. Seems this has just been copied many times to new ports. On 03/21/2012 02:58 PM, reed kotler

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Johannes Birgmeier <e0902998 at student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> Hi Johannes, what processor are you targeting?  Is it little-endian or >> big-endian? > Little-endian. (The truth: you can set it manually, but it is set to > little endian, for sure.) The processor is a TI TMS320C64x. > > Follow-up: I discovered that the

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Johannes Birgmeier <e0902998 at student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Hello, > > my target has libcall support for long long shifts. I already have the > following lines in my Lowering constructor: > >   setLibcallName(RTLIB::SHL_I64, "__llshl"); >   setLibcallName(RTLIB::SRL_I64, "__llshru"); >  

> Hi Johannes, what processor are you targeting? Is it little-endian or > big-endian? Little-endian. (The truth: you can set it manually, but it is set to little endian, for sure.) The processor is a TI TMS320C64x. Follow-up: I discovered that the "guilty" method is DAGCombiner::ReduceLoadWidth. The error is introduced because the offset is not calculated correctly. The first