similar to: [LLVMdev] Fixing VAARG on PPC64

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:50:12 +0100 Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Finkel, > > Le 23/03/2012 05:50, Hal Finkel a écrit : > > The PowerPC backend on PPC64 for non-Darwin (SVR4 ABI) systems > > currently has a problem handling integer types smaller than 64 bits. > > This is because the ABI specifies that these types are > > zero-extended

Le 23/03/2012 17:02, Hal Finkel a écrit : > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:50:12 +0100 > Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Finkel, >> >> Le 23/03/2012 05:50, Hal Finkel a écrit : >>> The PowerPC backend on PPC64 for non-Darwin (SVR4 ABI) systems >>> currently has a problem handling integer types smaller than 64 bits. >>> This

Hi Finkel, Le 23/03/2012 05:50, Hal Finkel a écrit : > The PowerPC backend on PPC64 for non-Darwin (SVR4 ABI) systems > currently has a problem handling integer types smaller than 64 bits. > This is because the ABI specifies that these types are zero-extended to > 64 bits on the stack and the default logic provided in LegalizeDAG does > not use that convention. Specifically, for

On my target store/load of f32 or i32 are equivalents. Previously I had duplicate instructions def in .td to map f32 and i32 to the same opcode. I deleted all that and I instead tried a new approach (to simplify things) : setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::f32, Promote); AddPromotedToType(ISD::STORE, MVT::f32, MVT::i32); setOperationAction(ISD::LOAD, MVT::f32, Promote);

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:09:58PM -0400, Francois Pichet wrote: > On my target store/load of f32 or i32 are equivalents. > Previously I had duplicate instructions def in .td to map f32 and i32 to > the same opcode. > > I deleted all that and I instead tried a new approach (to simplify things) : > > setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::f32, Promote); >

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:09:58PM -0400, Francois Pichet wrote: > > On my target store/load of f32 or i32 are equivalents. > > Previously I had duplicate instructions def in .td to map f32 and i32 to > > the same opcode. > > > > I deleted all that and I instead tried a new approach

Thanks, indeed it was on the LegalizeDAG.cpp and the information proved very useful. I also realized that the customization, promotion or expansion will occur whenever any operand, with the same type as the type specified on the second argument (MVT) of setOperationAction function, appears. (Correct me if I'm wrong). The second doubt I have regards instruction matching. When I define a

Dear there, I have a target which is supporting the 32 bit operations natively. Right now,I want to make it support the 16 bits operations as well. My initial thought is: (1) I can adding something like “ CCIfType< [i16], CCPromoteToType<i32>>”, to the CallingConv.td, then “all” the 16 bits operands will be automatically promoted to 32 bits, it will be all set. but looks it is not

Sorry, glad I'm in the right place. Before I start, I want to state that I'm a beginer and I'm trying to develop a backend by adapting an existent target to my platform. My first doubt is about the SelectionDAG and the TargetLowering class. When I use, for example: setOperationAction(ISD::ADD, MVT::i1, Promote); Is it correct to say that I'm promoting any operand used by the

On Feb 12, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Christopher Lamb wrote: > > selector refused to select certain ops (specifically stores) for some > instructions when the operand type wasn't the first type for the > register class. After some digging around I seem to have solved the > problem by creating bitconvert patterns between the types in the > register class like the following: > >

Hrmm.... PromoteVectorOp doesn't seem to follow this at all. http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorOps.cpp SDValue VectorLegalizer::PromoteVectorOp(SDValue Op) { // Vector "promotion" is basically just bitcasting and doing the operation // in a different type. For example, x86 promotes ISD::AND on v2i32 to // v1i64. EVT VT =

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > A VAARG call requires a lot of computation. Typically the C code for > va_arg(ap, int) If you use va_arg in C, are you seeing llvm.vaarg in the output .ll file? -Chris > is: > > int va_arg_gpr(ap_list ap) { > int idx = ap->gpr; > if (idx < 8) { > ap->gpr = idx + 1; > return

Hi Chris, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > >> A VAARG call requires a lot of computation. Typically the C code for >> va_arg(ap, int) >> > > If you use va_arg in C, are you seeing llvm.vaarg in the output .ll file? > I'm guessing that if you're asking, then no llvm.vaarg is generated. I can not test it on my

Notice that PromoteVectorOp is called after the type legalization legalized all of the types in the program. It legalizes the *operations*, not the types. So, you should only see legal types (Legal types are types that fit into your registers). So, if your target has v2i32, I suspect that v4i8 is an illegal because it has a different size. -----Original Message----- From: Villmow, Micah

Hi everyone, I'm implementing varags handling for PPC32 with the ELF ABI. It is largely more complicated than the Macho ABI or x86 because it manipulates a struct instead of a direct pointer in the stack. You can find the layout of the va_list struct at the end of this mail. A VAARG call requires a lot of computation. Typically the C code for va_arg(ap, int) is: int va_arg_gpr(ap_list

v4i8 itself is a legal type, just not on the 'AND' operation. So there seems to be multiple problems here. 1) PromoteVectorOp doesn't handle the case where the types are not the same size, this occurs because #2 2) getTypeToPromoteTo doesn't actual check to see if the type it should promote to makes any sense. 3) PromoteVectorOp also doesn't handle the case where

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Nemanja Ivanovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It is not a keyword. It is a node defined in > include/llvm/Target/TargetSelectionDAG.td. You can likely find most of the > definitions you're wondering about there. > In terms of its purpose, perhaps someone can elaborate on that a bit more, > but there is no corresponding

Hi, On 01/22/2016 05:02 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:58:49PM +0100, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm a litle bit puzzled by the TargetLowering::LowerOperation function, >> and what different callers of this function assumes about the returned >> value. >> > SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp() is your best

Hi! I am trying to implement va_arg() on ppc32. Everything went smooth, except implementing va_arg() of 64bit int. Since i64 is not a legal type on ppc32 DAGTypeLegalizer::ExpandRes_VAARG() splits the va_arg(i64) into two i32 va_args. The problem with ppc32 va_arg is that it needs special "alignment" of its gpr pointer when the argument is i64. Ie. I need to know if I am lowering

I'm generating code for a target that only supports i32 natively. My front end is generating VAARG for accessing varargs parameters. The problem is that I get an assert when I compile this: #include <stdarg.h> int main(va_list ap) { typedef double type; type tmp; tmp = va_arg(ap, type); } Bitcode: ; ModuleID = 't0056.bc' target datalayout =