similar to: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] LLVM Backend for Z80

Hello. I am playing with LLVM and trying to make Z80 (Zilog Z80) backend. The source code is attached. I have succesfully made some simple test. But now I have problem with ADD instruction. The source C code is: typedef struct { unsigned char id1; unsigned char id2; unsigned char id3; } testS; void simple() { testS test; test.id1 = 0x40; test.id2 = 0x80; test.id3 = 0xc0; } It

Hi Peter, I think the problem is that you did not explicitly define stack alignment in Z80TargetMachine.cpp DataLayout("e-p:16:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:8:8-i32:8:8-n8") Try to add S16 to the string if your stack is 2-byte aligned. Refer to http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#datalayout . If it does not work, try to specify the layout in the input module using target layout directive. David On

Hello. I have played with DataLayout and found a solution with is uknown to me. I added S16 and also s0:16:16, but it had not worked. Then I found that in Z80FrameLowering.h I am calling TargetFrameLowering with stack aligment set to 8. So I changed it to 2 bytes. But this also didn't help. Then I changed llc to show TargetDataLayout and found that a option is set to a0:0:64. So I changed

Hi, I'm trying to revive jacobly0's Z80 back-end (from https://github.com/jacobly0/llvm-z80) and build it with a current version of LLVM. Apart from some interface changes, I'm stuck at building the tables. Specifically, the generation of the DAG instruction selector causes an assertion in the table generator: Assertion failed: Ops.size() >= NumSrcResults &&

Inspired by Jason Turner's talk at CppCon 2016: Jason Turner “Rich Code for Tiny Computers: A Simple Commodore 64 Game in C++17” I got interested in writing a Zilog Z80 backend for LLVM. Jason actually did no such thing, but instead wrote a x86-to-6502 translator (reassembler he calls it) https://github.com/lefticus/x86-to-6502 So I'm now trying to bootstrap this project. Goal: - be

I'm working on a Z80 backend and am trying to efficiently lower SEXT, specifically 8 to 16 bit, in LowerOperation() according to the following rules: The Z80 has 8 bit registers and 16 bit registers, which are aliased versions of two 8 bit registers. 8 bit registers are named A, H, L, D, E and some more. 16 bit registers are HL (composed of H + L), DE (D + E) - and some more - with L and

I want to make Z80 codegen backend to the LLVM. CLang+LLVM looks perfect, while quick playing around. Some questions available: 1) Does LLVM support to generate "mixed" code ? For example: in microcontrollers world the subroutine call with const arguments may be decorated like this: call subroutine defw wArg1 defw wArg2 ; ordinary code continues here subroutine pop return address

Hi All. I'm writing storeRegToStackSlot and loadFromStackSlot function for my Target. This Target can store/load one byte (not all word) from FrameIndex. If I need to store 16 bit register I will must to split it to two instruction like this: BuildMI(MBB, MI, dl, get(Z80::LD8xmr)) .addFrameIndex(FrameIndex).addImm(0) .addReg(SrcReg, 0, Z80::subreg_lo); BuildMI(MBB, MI, dl,

Hi Dmitriy, As you've seen our current spill code assumes that spill/reloads are single instructions. I think the best way to work around this is to introduce load/store pseudo-instructions and expand these after register allocation. Cheers, Lang. On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Dmitriy Limonov <earl at excluzive.ws> wrote: > Hi All. > > I'm writing

Hi all, When compiling some programs using the Mips backend i'm getting this assert message on lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:227: "Range is not entirely in interval!" I don't know yet if it's something that is missing on the backend code or why the range to be removed it outside the interval, does anyone have any clue? A more detailed output is attached. The program i tried

I've run into a situation in isel where it seems like the selector is generating a cycle in the DAG. I have something like this: 0x215f140: v2f64 = llvm.x86.sse2.min.sd 0x215efd0, 0x21606d0, 0x215eb80 [0] 0x215efd0: i64 = Constant <647> [0] 0x21606d0: v2f64 = scalar_to_vector 0x213b8f0 [0] 0x213b8f0: f64,ch = load 0x213b780, 0x213aa90, 0x213b610 <0x2113690:0> alignment=8

Hi Lang. Thank you. I added pseudo-instructions for spill/reloads and expanded it in expandPostRAPseudo. Regards, Dmitriy. 04.03.2013 8:24, Lang Hames wrote: > Hi Dmitriy, > > As you've seen our current spill code assumes that spill/reloads are > single instructions. I think the best way to work around this is to > introduce load/store pseudo-instructions and expand these

Hi everyone, I have the following code (as part of a larger function): %0 = icmp eq i16 %a, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %0, label %bb1, label %bb I would like to match this with a BRCOND, but all I get is an error message when compiling the above code that say: LLVM ERROR: Cannot yet select: 0x170f200: ch = br_cc 0x170f000, 0x170ed00, 0x170dc60, 0x170ec00, 0x170ef00 [ID=19]

I'm working on defining the instructions and implementing the lowering code for a Z80 backend. For now, the backend supports only the native CPU-supported datatypes, which are 8 and 16 bits wide (i.e. no 32 bit long, float, ... yet). So far, a lot of the simple stuff like immediate loads and return values is very straightforward, but now I got stuck with ISD::TRUNCATE, as in:

Hello. I write backend for Z80 cpu and I have some trouble with lowering load/store nodes to different machine opcodes. Some target instructions work with specified registers (not all registers in RegisterClass). Often it's one or two registers. I don't understand how use ComplexPattern in this case. But if I don't use ComplexPattern I'll have other problems - not all

Okay, after playing around a bit more, I'm getting two oopes in a row when running dbench 16 or dbench 32. Decoded, here they are: Assertion failure in unmap_underlying_metadata() at buffer.c:1530: "!buffer_jlist_eq(old_bh, 3)" kernel BUG at buffer.c:1530! Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 4 NIP: C003BB34 XER: 00000000 LR: C003BB34 SP: CF881E00 REGS: cf881d50 TRAP: 0700 Using

also i further run the following command; llc -debug filer-knl_o3.ll and its output is attached here. by looking at the output can we say that legalization runs fine and the error is due to instruction selection/ pattern matching which is not yet implemented? so do i need to worry and try to correct it at this stage or should i move forward to implement instruction selection/ pattern matching?

Hi there, I am currently trying to create an LLVM Backend for a RISC architecture and running into problems with setCC and brcond. First a few explanations: The architecture doesn't have a dedicated flag register, but seven 1-bit-wide so called "condition registers", c0-c6, which can be set by e.g. a compare instruction: > cmp ne, c0, r1, 123 It also supports conditional

>It should be possible to get llvm to produce very good code for the Z80... Yes, I was thinking that too. These techniques didn't exist back then, so I'm really looking forward to the point where the first regular C sources can be compiled and see the magic happening in action live :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Bruce Hoult