similar to: [LLVMdev] Best way to interface with MSVC _ftol2 runtime function for fptoui?

On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Joe Groff wrote: > Hi everyone. On i386--win32 targets, LLVM tries to use the MSVCRT > routine _ftol2 for floating-point to unsigned conversions, but this > function has a nonstandard calling convention LLVM doesn't understand. > It takes its input operand on the x87 stack as ST0, which it pops off > of the stack before returning. The return value

2012/1/18 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>: > This should work: > %1 = call i64 asm "call __ftol2", "=A,{st},~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{st}" (double %x) nounwind Thanks Jakob, the ~{st} constraint does the trick. It wasn't clear to me that "clobbers" means "pops" for x87 registers. -Joe

On Jan 18, 2012, at 8:56 PM, Joe Groff wrote: > 2012/1/18 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>: >> This should work: >> %1 = call i64 asm "call __ftol2", "=A,{st},~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{st}" (double %x) nounwind > > Forgive me for being slow, but what would be the best way to implement > the equivalent of that inline asm as a custom

2012/1/18 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>: > This should work: > %1 = call i64 asm "call __ftol2", "=A,{st},~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{st}" (double %x) nounwind Forgive me for being slow, but what would be the best way to implement the equivalent of that inline asm as a custom lowering for an instruction? Can I just create a CallInst and tell it to

2012/1/19 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>: > How many of these libcalls do you need to implement? What exactly is the calling convention? Which registers are clobbered etc. There is only one (that I know about so far). The MSVCRT `_ftol2` function implements floating-point-to-unsigned conversion for i386 targets, and LLVM 3.0 calls it with the cdecl calling convention for

On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Joe Groff wrote: > 2012/1/19 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>: >> How many of these libcalls do you need to implement? What exactly is the calling convention? Which registers are clobbered etc. > > There is only one (that I know about so far). The MSVCRT `_ftol2` > function implements floating-point-to-unsigned conversion for i386

On Jan 24, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Joe Groff wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: >> X86FloatingPoint.cpp with comments is all you get. > > Thanks for your help, Jakob. Attached is a first-pass attempt at a > patch. I don't want to post to -commits yet because I have no idea if > this is fully correct, but it seems

On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Joe Groff wrote: > The integer runtime functions (_allmul, _alldiv, etc. for 64-bit > integer arithmetic) all appear to be straight-up stdcall. _ftol2 is > the only weird one. (There is an _ftol routine with the same calling > convention as _ftol2, but AFAIK it's only for backward compatibility > with older MSVC runtimes.) I'm far from an MSVC

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > Alright.  We definitely don't want to model it as a general call, then.  Normal calls clobber lots of registers. > > The options are: > > 1. Use a pseudo-instruction that X86FloatingPoint understands and turns into a call after arranging for the argument to be in ST0. >   You should

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > Yes, your definition of the new instruction looks sane. > > However, you shouldn't expand the instruction right away in EmitInstrWithCustomInserter(), and leaving the pseudo and call instructions side by side is not going to work. > > Just leave the pseudo-instruction alone until it hits

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > X86FloatingPoint.cpp with comments is all you get. Thanks for your help, Jakob. Attached is a first-pass attempt at a patch. I don't want to post to -commits yet because I have no idea if this is fully correct, but it seems to work in simple test cases. Am I on the right track? Could this patch ever

Hi Joe & Michael, In rev. 151382 you have changed the fptoui implementation of the x86 codegen for win32. Before the change fptoui was lowered to flds 16(%esp) fisttpll 8(%esp) movl 8(%esp), %eax After the change fptoui is lowered to flds 40(%esp) calll _ftol2 Please note that the assumption that _ftol2 doesn't modify ECX isn't true on sandybridge platform.

Eli Friedman wrote: > 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >> Works on x86. >> >> %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect

Hi, I' am trying to insert an InlineAsm Instruction in my pass, which FunctionType do I need for Inlineasm? If I understand it right, I need a call instruction to insert the new produced InlineAsm? Thanks for help, Michael for (BasicBlock::iterator bi = i->begin(), be = i->end(); bi != be; ++bi){ std::vector<const Type*> asm_arguments;

The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). Works on x86. %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect "syscall\0A\09", "={ax},0,{di},~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"(i64 231, i64 %41) nounwind ; <i64> [#uses=2] -Rich

On Jul 31, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Michael Graumann wrote: > Hi, > I’ am trying to insert an InlineAsm Instruction in my pass, which > FunctionType do I need for Inlineasm? > If I understand it right, I need a call instruction to insert the > new produced InlineAsm? > > Thanks for help Inline asm works like a "callee". So for: call void asm sideeffect

2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > Eli Friedman wrote: >> 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >>> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >>> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >>> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >>>

Hi all, I'm trying to land (a rebased version of) http://llvm.org/D37461 - which should make it possible to handle x86 Intel assembly like mov eax, offset Foo::ptr + 1 (Currently, omitting the +1 works... but offset doesn't work in compound expressions.) I'm having trouble figuring out what inline assembly I can emit into the LLVM IR that will work properly. So far, the closest

Hi all, I'm getting rather odd behavior from a call asm inteldialect(). TL;DR is "mov reg, $0" with a "i" constraint on $0 is behaving identical to "mov reg, dword ptr [$0]" and differently from "movl $0, reg" in AT&T syntax. I'm not sure how to get clang to emit an inteldialect, so for this example, I'm emitting llvm and then modifying

2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. > My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference > (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). > Works on x86. > > %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect "syscall\0A\09", >