similar to: [LLVMdev] Minimum addressable unit

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eli, > Thanks for your response. Please see my responses below. > > > On 10/12/2011 00:28, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan<ivanllopard at gmail.com> >>  wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am writing

On 10/12/2011 01:32, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli, >> Thanks for your response. Please see my responses below. >> >> >> On 10/12/2011 00:28, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan<ivanllopard at gmail.com> >>> wrote:

Hi Eli, Thanks for your response. Please see my responses below. On 10/12/2011 00:28, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am writing a back-end for a processor that has complex type registers. >> It has two functional units to perform complex multiplications. >> From clang,

Hi all, I am writing a back-end for a processor that has complex type registers. It has two functional units to perform complex multiplications. From clang, I emulate a complex multiplication using vectors and, at the IR, I got this tblgen-friendly pattern (real component) : (set RARegs:$dst, (insertelt RARegs:$src, (i16 (trunc (add (ncmul (sext (i16

On Dec 9, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Ivan Llopard wrote: > Hi Eli, > Thanks for your response. Please see my responses below. > > On 10/12/2011 00:28, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am writing a back-end for a processor that has complex type registers.

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am writing a back-end for a processor that has complex type registers. > It has two functional units to perform complex multiplications. >  From clang, I emulate a complex multiplication using vectors and, at > the IR, I got this tblgen-friendly pattern (real component) : >

I agree, that doesn't look right. It looks like this is what was intended: Index: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp (revision 65000) +++ lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp (working copy) @@ -4903,9 +4903,9 @@ // resultant store does not need a higher alignment than

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 21:43, Dan Gohman wrote: > I agree, that doesn't look right. It looks like this > is what was intended: > > Index: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp > =================================================================== > --- lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp (revision 65000) > +++ lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp

I got bit by this in LLVM 2.4 DagCombiner.cpp and it's still in trunk: SDValue DAGCombiner::visitSTORE(SDNode *N) { [...] // If this is a store of a bit convert, store the input value if the // resultant store does not need a higher alignment than the original. if (Value.getOpcode() == ISD::BIT_CONVERT && !ST->isTruncatingStore() && ST->isUnindexed()) {

Hi Krzysztof, Sure, please see below. DAG.dump.() before and after, annotated with what I believe the DAG means. I've spent some time debugging the method but it's proving difficult to determine where the logic is misfiring. Disabling the entire combine causes a lot of failing x86-64 tests - I may have to learn an upstream vector ISA to make progress on this. Thank you >From your

This is the definition of BITCAST in include/llvm/CodeGen/ISDOpcodes.h: // BITCAST - This operator converts between integer, vector and FP // values, as if the value was stored to memory with one type and loaded // from the same address with the other type (or equivalently for vector // format conversions, etc). The source and result are required to have // the same bit size (e.g. f32 <->

Hi Akira, > This is the definition of BITCAST in include/llvm/CodeGen/ISDOpcodes.h: > > // BITCAST - This operator converts between integer, vector and FP > // values, as if the value was stored to memory with one type and loaded > // from the same address with the other type (or equivalently for vector > // format conversions, etc). The source and result are required to have

Hi Duncan and llvm developers, The attached patch makes the function return true if the conversion is between a vector and an integer of the same size. Please review when you have time. On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Akira, > > > This is the definition of BITCAST in include/llvm/CodeGen/ISDOpcodes.h: > > > > //

Hi, I was wondering if there is a way to specify macros to help shorten rewriting patterns like these: def : Pat <(v4i8 (mul (v4i8 IntRegs:$a), (v4i8 IntRegs:$b))), (v4i8 (VTRUNEHB (v4i16 (VTRUNEWH (v2i32 (VMPYH (v2i16 (EXTRACT_SUBREG (v4i16 (VSXTBH (v4i8 IntRegs:$a))), subreg_hireg)), (v2i16 (EXTRACT_SUBREG (v4i16 (VSXTBH (v4i8

Type::canLoslesslyBitCastTo(Type *Ty) in lib/VMCore/Type.cpp always returns false when it checks whether an integer can be bitcast to a vector or vice versa. For example, (i32 => v2i16) or (v2i16 => i32) is false. But it seems that it returns true if it is checking conversion between two vector types which have the same size. For example, (v4i8 => v2i16) would return true. What is the

Hi everyone. I am using LLVM 2.4 release to practise the tutorial at Kaleidoscope Chapter 4. I built the LLVM library, and created my own project, and then paste the code from the tutorial into my own project. Then after compiled and built it, I passed the built stage. (I am using visual studio 2005 ) However, when I tried to input some code in the command line window, the sample program crashed.

I was trying to do a pattern matching for a rd+imm instruction in my own backend. It looks something like: def: Pat<build_vector v2i16:$src1, v2i16:$src2, (OR (SLLI GPR: $src1,16), GPR:$src2>; OR takes two i32 in registers and SLLI takes one i32 in registers and an immediate. But the immediate '16' does not work here and I tried different ways. May I know if any of you have any idea

I have a problem where I add an Andersens AA pass to the pass manager, but it appears to get invalidated by another pass, and never rerun. My understanding from reading the documentation is that when a pass gets invalidated, it should be rerun before any other passes that requires it. Here is a simple example of the problem I am seeing: PassManager passManager; passManager.add(new

Hi! I have the same situation, but some more information : 1) I have tried to change the last line to "APPEND root=/dev/sda1", it did not seem to make any difference 2) If I type ENTER at the prompt, syslinux loads the kernel (but with the same results mentioned above). So, clearly I have a problem with my extlinux.conf. Thanks Mau On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Mau Z

Hi folks, just installed the new llvm 1.9 build and noticed that my code no longer worked. It seems something has changed with addPassesToEmitFile(). First, the arguments to that method changed so that it no longer takes a PassManager, but only a FunctionPassManager. Instead there is a addPassesToEmitWholeFile() method, but that is marked as optional, and when I change my code to