similar to: [LLVMdev] Tablegen to match a literal in an instruction

I'm not at the machine that has the changes, but it was failing at index 0. Micah From: Owen Anderson [mailto:resistor at mac.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 3:35 PM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Tablegen to match a literal in an instruction Micah, I don't see anything wrong with this offhand. Have you tried getting the debug output

Micah, I don't see anything wrong with this offhand. Have you tried getting the debug output from llc -debug, and matching it up with the state machine in your DAGISel.inc to see at what step the auto-generated matcher is failing to match your and-with-immediate? -Owen On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:07 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I am trying to make

Right, it's failing when it tries to materialize a move of a constant into a register. But it's only trying to do that because it previously failed to fold the constant into the AND. What you need to do is step through the path it takes when matching the AND node, and try to figure out why it ends up selecting the register-register version rather than the register-immediate version.

You can tell LLVM that you have "sign extended" setCC results (all ones). Dan On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Villmow, Micah > <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: >> The IR produces correct results, but my backend does not and the >> only thing >> I can think of is that the IR is treating the

I am having a problem with instruction selection with pattern fragments. With my custom target, in order to simplify code generation patterns, I do not allow a constant to be used in an instruction(mainly because they have declare before use semantics). Now the problem I am having is that I cannot get a instruction that contains pattern fragment that uses an immediate value to be selected before

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I am having a problem with instruction selection with pattern fragments. > > With my custom target, in order to simplify code generation patterns, I do > not allow a constant to be used in an instruction(mainly because they have > declare before use semantics). > > > > Now the

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 7:15 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Setting priority in instruction selection > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> > wrote: > > I am having a problem

We are syncing to 2.9 and we are hitting an with our backend in VerifySDNode in SelectionDAG.cpp. The first assert here is failing assert(!isa<MemSDNode>(N) && "Bad MemSDNode!"); Now, this is new to 2.9 and I am trying to understand what is invalid about what I am generating. What I generate has worked fine from LLVM version 2.4 until now without causing any issues.

I am not sure what you are looking to do. Please provide a mark up example. Evan On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > Is there currently a way to use a pattern inside of another pattern? > > Micah Villmow > Systems Engineer > Advanced Technology & Performance > Advanced Micro Devices Inc. > 4555 Great America Pkwy, > Santa Clara, CA. 95054 > P:

Is there currently a way to use a pattern inside of another pattern? Micah Villmow Systems Engineer Advanced Technology & Performance Advanced Micro Devices Inc. 4555 Great America Pkwy, Santa Clara, CA. 95054 P: 408-572-6219 F: 408-572-6596 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Bill, Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to reduce redundant code. For example: multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node> { def _i8 : Pat<(sub GPRI8:$src0, GPRI8:$src1), (ADD_i8 GPRI8:$src0, (NEGATE_i8 GPRI8:$src1))>; def _i32 : Pat<(sub

I do not have access to a subtraction routine, as it is considered add with negation on the second parameter, so I have this pattern: // integer subtraction // a - b ==> a + (-b) def ISUB : Pat<(sub GPRI32:$src0, GPRI32:$src1), (IADD GPRI32:$src0, (INEGATE GPRI32:$src1))>; I am attemping to do 64 bit integer shifts and using the following pattern: def LSHL :

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Bill, > Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that > define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to > reduce redundant code. > For example: > multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node> > { > def _i8 : Pat<(sub

Is there a way to define a multi-class pattern in tablegen? Thanks, Micah Villmow Systems Engineer Advanced Technology & Performance Advanced Micro Devices Inc. S1-609 One AMD Place Sunnyvale, CA. 94085 P: 408-749-3966 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Is there a way to define a multi-class pattern in tablegen? > Yes. See "multiclass" and "defm" in, say, X86Instr64bit.td, et al. -bw

I have two patterns in tablegen that do look like the exact same thing: Pat 1) def MOV_v4i16 : ILFormat<IL_OP_MOV, (outs GPRV4I16:$dst), (ins i16imm:$val), asm, [(set GPRV4I16:$dst, (build_vector (i16 imm:$val)))]>; Pat 2) def v4i16imm : Operand<v4i16>; def MOV_v4i16 : ILFormat<IL_OP_MOV, (outs GPRV4I16:$dst), (ins v4i16imm:$val), asm, [(set

I am attempting to match setcc using tablegen w/ the following patterns: def FEQ : Instruction<(outs GPRF32:$dst), (ins GPRF32:$src0, GPRF32:$src1), "eq $dst, $src0, $src1", [(set GPRF32:$dst, (seteq GPRF32:$src0, GPRF32:$src1))]>; And it is failing stating that the result must be an integer. Is there a way around this other than modifying TargetSelectionDAG.td? Also,

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Fabian Scheler > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:12 AM > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: [LLVMdev] More Back-End Porting Troubles > > Hi LLVM-Folks, > > as mentioned in an earlier post >

Hi LLVM-Folks, as mentioned in an earlier post (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-July/051677.html) I am currently working on a Back-End for the TriCore processor. Currently, I am struggling as LLVM could not select zext and load, for instance, so some of the testcases in test/CodeGen/Generic are not successfully compiled by my back-end. Furthermore, I am completely puzzled by the

Hi, first of all: thanks for your kind, very helpful and unbelievable fast response! >> as mentioned in an earlier post >> (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-July/051677.html) I >> am currently working on a Back-End for the TriCore processor. >> Currently, I am struggling as LLVM could not select zext and load, for >> instance, so some of the testcases