similar to: [LLVMdev] type f128

Hi Akira > Is the llvm backend (legalize, isel, etc.) currently capable of > handling type f128? > I am trying to emit a call to __subtf3 when I compile the following bitcode: It depends... There is some generic code here and there which can handle f128, but some parts are still missed. You might need to fill them... -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Paulo J. Matos <pocmatos at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:09 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: >> I believe what you want is documented here: >> >> http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#datalayout >> > > Just a note, since it might be a bug on the backend or documentation. > It says on the

Hello, I'm new to this mailing list and fixing llvm bugs for Android. Can anyone point me to any previous discussion or work related to the following bug? https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23897 I am testing my patch to llvm to make f128 values stay in SSE registers instead of being split into two i64 values. I have tried to add a register class FR128 to hold f128 values for the x86_64

Hello, I'm part of the (sadly fairly small) community of PS2 hackers. The current cross-toolchain for the PS2 is based on GCC 3.2.3, an outdated and buggy compiler, which I have personally gotten tired of working with, so I would like to port Clang as a newer cross-compiler for the PS2. However, the PS2 has some notable quirks which make this a non-trivial task for the current compiler. It

I figured it out. I was using this implementation of __chkstk from compiler-rt: DEFINE_COMPILERRT_FUNCTION(___chkstk) push %rcx cmp $0x1000,%rax lea 16(%rsp),%rcx // rsp before calling this routine -> rcx jb 1f 2: sub $0x1000,%rcx test %rcx,(%rcx) sub $0x1000,%rax cmp $0x1000,%rax ja 2b 1:

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:09 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > I believe what you want is documented here: > > http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#datalayout > Just a note, since it might be a bug on the backend or documentation. It says on the documentation that size for f is either 32 or 64, however, sparc has 64 and 128. -- PMatos

Hello, To any out-of-tree targets, please be aware that I intend to commit a patch that will break the build of any target implementing TargetLoweringBase::isFMAFasterThanMulAndAdd, for the reasons described below. (Basically, the current interface definition is broken and not followed, and no in-tree target was doing the right thing with it, so it is unlikely any out-of-tree target is either...)

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jon Roelofs via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > As an update, after lots of fixes from a number of different people > (thanks everyone!), the current list of false-positives on `ninja > check-llvm` for the more stringent Gotcha A diagnostic is: > > LLVM :: Analysis/CostModel/X86/vselect-cost.ll > LLVM ::

Hi Tim, Thanks for the hint. I tried the following, (it's a C interface since that's what I need it for) where a and b are the top and bottom halves of the 128 bit value, LLVMValueRef TestConst(LLVMContextRef C, uint64_t a, uint64_t b) { Type *ty = Type::getFP128Ty(*unwrap(C)); ArrayRef<uint64_t> ar[2] = {a,b}; APInt ai(128,*ar); APFloat quad(APFloat::IEEEquad(), ai);

On Feb 16, 2009, at 6:36 PMPST, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2009, at 6:12 PM, aparna kotha wrote: > >> I am new to llvm and am stuck up with a problem. >> I am trying to initialize a Value* of type fp128 having the value 0 >> >> I am using the following construct >> >> ConstantFP::get(APFloat(APInt(128,0,false))); >> >> This is

I am new to llvm and am stuck up with a problem. I am trying to initialize a Value* of type fp128 having the value 0 I am using the following construct ConstantFP::get(APFloat(APInt(128,0,false))); This is returning a double instead of a float and I am confused. Thanks a lot for your help. -- -- Aparna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Feb 16, 2009, at 6:12 PM, aparna kotha wrote: > I am new to llvm and am stuck up with a problem. > I am trying to initialize a Value* of type fp128 having the value 0 > > I am using the following construct > > ConstantFP::get(APFloat(APInt(128,0,false))); > > This is returning a double instead of a float and I am confused. > > Thanks a lot for your help. FP128Ty

Hello, I am trying to find out where the complete documentation for the TargetDescription string documentation is. I am reading the tutorial and looking at the sparc backend at the same time and there are some discrepancies. Therefore the documentation would be extremely valuable but I can't seem to find it. In the tutorial it shows the string "E-p:32:32-f128:128:128", but the real

In "Writing an LLVM Compiler Backend", there's some discussion of the TargetDescription string, but it doesn't explain the examples I look at. For instance, in the description of the PowerPC, I see "E-p:64:64-f64:64:64-i64:64:64-f128:64:128-n32:64" What's "preferred alignment" versus "ABI alignment"? What are the 3 figures following the

I am needing to return i128 as a shadow return due to abi issues on alpha.  The problem I am running into is the code for doing that with scalars (currently only used for vectors, as far as I can tell) sets the sret on the parameter.  If I just go this path, then I am setting sret on an integer pointer, which verify objects too.  LangRef doesn't say scalars are allowed to have sret set, but

Hello LLVM-Dev, Most of the processing for i64 and f64 types for our backend are emulation library calls. Some of the library calls are not defined in the RuntimeLibcalls.def Libcall enum so we have to define custom library calls. How is the ideal way of implementing the custom library calls? Providing us with a target backend having a similar functionality would also help us significantly. Say

Hi Renato, > * Have some call-back mechanism, possibly upon a flag > (HasSpecialDivRemLowering), and update the remainder result If you setOperationAction on SDIVREM and UDIVREM to Custom you can expand the rtlib call appropriately yourself. There's precedent for sincos on Darwin systems (both ARM and x86) and in AArch64 for basically every operation on fp128. Cheers. Tim.

On 4 January 2018 at 17:10, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the MipsCCState. Thanks for the insight Daniel, much appreciated. >> * MipsCCState: adds bool

Hello, A new patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47159 proposes transformations like: printf("Hello, %s %d", "world", 123) - > printf("Hello world 123") As Eli noted: "I'm not sure we can rewrite calls to varargs functions safely in general given the current state of the C ABI rules in LLVM. Sometimes clang does weird things to conform with the ABI

> On 4 Jan 2018, at 10:51, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: > > On 4 January 2018 at 17:10, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the