similar to: [LLVMdev] Help with PR12201

Hi all, I have problem with specifying complex patterns in PPC Isel backend. I would like to fetch few instructions into one like that: def MatchPAT1 : Pat<(or (or (shl GPRC:$rA, (i32 imm:$imm24)), (and (shl GPRC:$rA, (i32 imm:$imm8)), 0xFF0000) ), (or (srl GPRC:$rA, (i32 imm:$imm24)), (and (shl GPRC:$rA, (i32 imm:$imm8)),0xFF00) )), (myinstr GPRC:$rA)>; That pattern

On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 13:18 -0800, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > On Dec 5, 2011, at 12:56 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > RegScavenger is complaining about use of an undefined register, CTR8, in > > the BCTR8 instruction, in the following instance (this is from the PPC > > backend): > > > > BB#38: derived from LLVM BB %for.end50 > > Predecessors

RegScavenger is complaining about use of an undefined register, CTR8, in the BCTR8 instruction, in the following instance (this is from the PPC backend): BB#38: derived from LLVM BB %for.end50 Predecessors according to CFG: BB#36 %X3<def> = LD 0, <fi#27>; mem:LD8[FixedStack27] %X4<def> = RLDICR %X3<kill>, 3, 60 %X5<def> = LI8

Hi Sanjoy, > Attached set of patches splits llvm.init.trampoline into an "init" > phase and an "adjust" phase, as discussed on the "Go on dragonegg" > thread. thanks for doing this. The patches look good, though the decomposition into individual patches is not that great (since things won't always work, in fact not even compile I think, with not all

On Oct 7, 2008, at 12:04 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Friday 03 October 2008 12:06, Dan Gohman wrote: >> On Fri, October 3, 2008 9:10 am, David Greene wrote: >>> On Thursday 02 October 2008 19:32, Dan Gohman wrote: >>>> Looking at your dump() output above, it looks like the pre- >>>> selection >>>> loads have multiple uses, so even though

On Friday 03 October 2008 12:06, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Fri, October 3, 2008 9:10 am, David Greene wrote: > > On Thursday 02 October 2008 19:32, Dan Gohman wrote: > >> Looking at your dump() output above, it looks like the pre-selection > >> loads have multiple uses, so even though you've managed to match a > >> larger pattern that incorporates them, they

Hi, I'm implementing __builtin_setjmp and __builtin_longjmp for Sparc 32 bit processors (64 bit later, time allowing). I'm basing the code on the PowerPC version, which itself is based on the X86 version. This code is very nearly working, and I've had it working for -O0 optimisation (with a slightly different version to that below), so I know it's close. However, the PowerPC

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? >> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would >> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction

Hello all, I wish to get the va_arg instruction working on X86-64 Linux. This requires implementing VAARG lowering for X86-64. I am fine with implementing it, but I am unsure of what approach I should take. The straightforward option is to add the DAG nodes required to perform the operation during lowering. (in X86TargetLowering::LowerVAARG()). However, the resulting code will be relatively

On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:07 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Friday 26 February 2010 10:34:41 David Greene wrote: >> On Friday 26 February 2010 09:55:32 David Greene wrote: >>> In the continuing quest to try to track down problems we're seeing >>> in >>> SelectionDAG, I added the following assert >>> toSelectionDAG::ReplaceAllUsesOfValuesWith: >>

Evan: I did not encounter this back trace before I committed the newest BuildVectorSDNode patch, which removed all class instance members and passes results back via reference parameters. -scooter On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > I believe this patch has broken a PPC app that I am tracking. Here is a > reduced test case. Reproduce

I believe this patch has broken a PPC app that I am tracking. Here is a reduced test case. Reproduce with llc -mattr=+Altivec -mcpu=g5. The backtrace looks like this: #0 0x9333ae42 in __kill () #1 0x9333ae34 in kill$UNIX2003 () #2 0x933ad23a in raise () #3 0x933b9679 in abort () #4 0x933ae3db in __assert_rtn () #5 0x0008bd8f in llvm::MVT::getVectorElementType (this=0xbfffdda4) at

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector > operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from > LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant > simplification.  There are still some issues with this patch, but does > the approach

On Friday 26 February 2010 19:09:01 Dan Gohman wrote: > I've now looked at your latest patch. In summary, it does expose a > subtle problem. I haven't seen anything that here would lead to > observable misbehavior yet though. Well, I'm definitely observing misbehavior. I know it has something to do with local changes here but I haven't isolated it yet. >

I am working the AVR backend. It is still in the early stage. I got the following error:[ 86%] Building CXX object lib/Target/AVR/CMakeFiles/LLVMAVRCodeGen.dir/AVRISelDAGToDAG.cpp.obj AVRISelDAGToDAG.cpp C:\llvm-build\lib\Target\AVR\AVRGenDAGISel.inc(596) : error C2664: 'llvm::SDNode *llvm::SelectionDAG::SelectNodeTo(llvm::SDNode *,unsigned int,llvm::MVT,llvm::MVT,llvm::MVT,const llvm::SDValue

Scott, In case you missed it, I reimplemented your BuildVectorSDNode::isConstantSplat method following the suggestions from Chris. The revised version passes "make check" for llvm. Assuming that it also passes Evan's tests, I think it should also do what you need for CellSPU. On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Scott Michel wrote: > Evan: > > I work on reverting it,

Evan: I work on reverting it, although, when I tried yesterday, it wasn't particularly clean (lots of rejected patches, presumably due to intervening commits.) Are you still getting the backtrace or is this just a case of incorrectly generated code? -scooter On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com> wrote: > Things are still broken. Unfortunately llvm

Ah, didn't see that, that's what comes of trying to do something at 5pm :) I attached an updated patch which creates a virtual register instead of using R0. How does this look? Cheers, Gary Dan Gohman wrote: > PPCTargetLowering::EmitInstrWithCustomInserter has a reference > to the current MachineFunction for other purposes. Can you use > MachineFunction::getRegInfo instead?

Things are still broken. Unfortunately llvm test suite does not contain enough vector code to fully test this. Can you revert the patch first? Evan On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Scott Michel wrote: > Evan: > > I did not encounter this back trace before I committed the newest > BuildVectorSDNode patch, which removed all class instance members > and passes results back via

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