similar to: [LLVMdev] Removing Intrinsic Functions

Dear Developers, I compiled a OpenCL kernel before (on Nov. last year) like __kernel void g(__global float* array) { array[get_global_id(0)] = 1; } with libclc, which would originally use the instrinsics like llvm.r600.read.local.size.x(). I executed the generated object file with one version of the hsa-runtime [1] provided by Mr. Stellard, when there was more than one workgroup, the output

Hi,all. I've been reading the llvm source code for some days. Here is my problem: what does instrinsic / intrinsic function really means? Are these "the function belong to llvm and just belong to llvm"? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I have two problems regarding the llvm.stackrestore intrinsic. I'm running on 3.0, but a quick test on trunk also showed the same behavior. First problem: --------------- I have code like: tmp1 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp2 = alloca [do some stuff with tmp2] call llvm.stackrestore(tmp1) [some other stuff] tmp3 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp4 = alloca [do some stuff

Hi Mr. Liu, Thanks for your quick reply. I compiled the code with the libclc_trunk and linked the bitcode file under $LIBCLC_DIR/built_libs/tahiti-amdgcn--.bc. After looking into the libclc, it is currently using the new workitem intrinsics (commit ba9858caa1e927a6fcc601e3466faa693835db5e). In the linked bitcode ($LIBCLC_DIR/built_libs/tahiti-amdgcn--.bc), it has the following code segment,

Hi, I've tracked the first problem (mentioned in my previous email, quoted below) down further, ending up in the handling of alloca in LoopRotation.cpp (from trunk): // If the instruction's operands are invariant and it doesn't read or write // memory, then it is safe to hoist. Doing this doesn't change the order of // execution in the preheader, but does

> Here is my problem: > what does instrinsic / intrinsic function really means? You probably need to look at http://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html. Simply put, when you want to extend LLVM IR, say adding a new LLVM instruction, you have better try to add a intrinsic function [1] which has the same effect as the instruction you want to add. I don't think they are the same

Hi all, A question came up in a code review (https://reviews.llvm.org/D72820) about whether or not to allow fast-math flags to be applied to constrained floating point intrinsics (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#constrained-floating-point-intrinsics). This has come up several times before, but I don't think we've ever made a decision about it. By default, the optimizer assumes that

Hi, LLVM is used to have an llvm.x86.and_ps instrinsic for the ANDPS instruction, but it seems to be gone, and it is a bit hard to synthetize it from vector instructions, since 'and' only works on vectors of integer types. Would a patch be accepted which adds this and related instructions back ? Zoltan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi all, I'm working on a language in which I would like all operations to be well defined. (and efficient) I want to define a sqrt function in my language, that will return NaN for arguments < 0, and NaN for a NaN argument. As far as I know, these semantics map nicely to the SQRTPS SSE instruction, which seems to return NaN on arguments < 0. However, the LLVM lang ref states

> On Mar 30, 2020, at 4:13 AM, Jeremy Morse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Sourabh, > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:09 AM Sourabh Singh Tomar via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Under what circumstances should a frontend choose to emit(at -O0(No optimization)) llvm.dbg.value for a local variable. >> >> I

I want to write a simple backend-specific instrinsic that will just call an instruction. How should I do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180924/7faeeb3d/attachment.html>

Hello, I have a problem with pattern matching on intrinsics. I have following code in IntrinsicsX86.td: ``` let TargetPrefix = "x86" in { // All intrinsics start with "llvm.x86.". def int_x86_mpx_bndmk: Intrinsic<[llvm_x86bnd_ty], [llvm_ptr_ty, llvm_i64_ty], []>; } ``` And following instruction that is generated when @llvm.x86.mpx.bndmk is used in code:

On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Zoltan Varga wrote: > Hi, > > LLVM is used to have an llvm.x86.and_ps instrinsic for the ANDPS instruction, but it seems to be gone, and it is a bit hard to > synthetize it from vector instructions, since 'and' only works on vectors of integer types. Would a patch be accepted which adds this and related instructions back ? No. It won't be.

2012/2/3 Patrik Hägglund <patrik.h.hagglund at ericsson.com>: > Hi, > > I've tracked the first problem (mentioned in my previous email, quoted > below) down further, ending up in the handling of alloca in > LoopRotation.cpp (from trunk): > >      // If the instruction's operands are invariant and it doesn't read > or write >      // memory, then it is

Hi all, I'm playing with intrinsics and I was wondering how to lower an intrinsic that should return, for example, an int1? More precisely, how to return the value when working with MachineInst? First, I have defined an instrinsic in "Intrinsics.td": _def int_antivm : Intrinsic<[llvm_i1_ty], [], [], "llvm.antivm">;_ Then I want to lower it in the X86 backend,

Each of the main TableGen files for the supported targets includes include "llvm/Target/Target.td" In turn, Target.td includes include "llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td" The final lines of Instrinsics.td are include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsPowerPC.td" include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td" include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsARM.td" include

> On Mar 30, 2020, at 11:57 PM, Sourabh Singh Tomar <sourav0311 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > My understanding is that this isn't correct: dbg.declare specifies the >> memory address of a variable for the whole lifetime of the function, >> whereas dbg.value (and dbg.addr) specify the value/address until the >> next debug intrinsic. Mixing these two kinds

Colleagues, I am trying to learn to use uniroot to solve a simple linear equation. I define the function, prove the function and a call to the function works. When I try to use uniroot to solve the equation I get an error message, Error in yfu n(x,10,20) : object 'x' not found. I hope someone can tell we how I can fix the problem

Hi All, I have a question on ConstantExpressions and llvm intrinsic memcpy/memset/memmove. I am using llvm-2.8 release. In one of the C programs that I am compiling using clang frontend, the call to memcpy instrinsic looks like the following call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %tmp2, i8* bitcast (%struct.ta* @tret to i8*), i64 4, i32 4, i1 false), !dbg !19 The second argument to memcpy is

I've tried all the types (both for result and Intrinsic ID), can't seem to find what cast is causing the issue here. On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > That's what I thought but I got the same error with: > > DAG.getNode(ISD::INTRINSIC_WO_CHAIN, DL, VT, > DAG.getTargetConstant(Intrinsic::my_intrinsic, DL, MVT::i16), LHS);