similar to: [LLVMdev] Intrinsics and external functions

I want to generate Haskell bindings to LLVM intrinsics. In a first attempt I wrote a little parser that reads IntrinsicsX86.td and outputs a Haskell module. E.g. the definition def int_x86_avx_max_ps_256 : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_maxps256">, Intrinsic<[llvm_v8f32_ty], [llvm_v8f32_ty, llvm_v8f32_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; is turned into

FYI, The CRC64 intrinsics were renamed to CRC32 since there is no such thing. See below for details. Chad On May 26, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Chad Rosier wrote: > Author: mcrosier > Date: Thu May 26 18:13:19 2011 > New Revision: 132163 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=132163&view=rev > Log: > Renamed llvm.x86.sse42.crc32 intrinsics; crc64 doesn't exist.

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

Hi, I was looking at the x86 vector intrinsics for converting half precision floating point numbers and I'm a bit confused as to why certain types were chosen. I've gone ahead and used their current definition with success but I'd like to understand why the types used with these intrinsics are done this way. For reference see ``include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td``. Here are the

Where would people like me to put AVX intrinsic definitions? I could put them in the current IntrinsicsX86.td or put them in a new file. We've called it IntrinsicsX86AVX.td. We put ours in a separate file to avoid upstream conflicts but now that we're getting ready to merge our stuff up we'd like the LLVM community's opinion on where it should go. Thanks.

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 Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: > I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation > support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best > way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization > pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics > (similar to raising mallocs). >

Hello，everyone. I am very embarrassed to ask such a simple question. I want to add an intrinsics(named max_qb) in x86 backend. In include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td, I add a intrinsics (GCCBuiltin). In clang( BuiltinsX86.def ), I add a BUILTIN. And in x86 backend , I change : the X86InstrInfo.td to add def X86max_qb_flag , X86InstrArithmetic.td to add define of instruction , X86ISelLowering.cpp to

What I was thinking is that if you need to link to module A to functions in module B (which you know might be re-JITed) you can have a stub function that gets used as the address called by module A and then you can use some brute force approach to maintain the actual address of the function in module B as it is re-JITed (maybe the stub could be a lightweight class with a member variable that's

Ok, I'll put a patch together to fix this later today. I'll probably do what Reid was suggesting and use what is already in there for Windows. Thanks, Samuel Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote on 11/04/2014 12:11:08 PM: > From: Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > To: Samuel F Antao/Watson/IBM at IBMUS > Cc: azanella at

Adding Jiangning Liu to the thread. Jiangning reported a similar issue on the llvm-commits list on Debian aarch64. In general it sounds like std::call_once may not really be bug free. Jiangning, can you please provide your gcc/libstdc++ version? Thanks, -Chris > On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 12:17

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: >> I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation >> support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best >> way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization >> pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics

It seems the crash of llvm/clang build on aarch64 Debian has been fixed by r220941. Thanks, -Jiangning 2014-11-05 8:45 GMT+08:00 Jiangning Liu <liujiangning1 at gmail.com>: > The versions I'm using right now are > > * gcc: (Debian/Linaro 4.9.1-14) 4.9.1 > * libstdc++: libstdc++.so.6.0.20 > > Thanks, > -Jiangning > > 2014-11-05 4:46 GMT+08:00 Chris Bieneman

Hi Bill, You can find the same issue in the buildbot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2/builds/16444/steps/compile.llvm.stage2/logs/stdio It is failing for me both in BE (gcc 4.8.2) and LE(4.9.1). I am compiling with clang 3.5, but those are the gcc toolchains I am using. What do you think is the best way to fix this? Thanks! Samuel Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Wei-Fan <wfchiang at cs.utah.edu> wrote: > Hello Jeff, > > Many thanks for your help!! > I successfully load a function in a dynamic library by using > sys::DynamicLibrary routines. great. > But I still have another question: > How if 'foo' is defined in a static library ?? > Is it possible not compiling the static libraries

Hi Sanjay, You are right. I tried XL and gcc 4.8.2 for PPC and I also got multiply-and-add operations. I supported my statement on what I read in the gcc man page. -ffast-math is used in clang to set fp-contract to fast (default is standard) and in gcc it activates (among others) the flag -funsafe-math-optimizations whose description includes: "Allow optimizations for floating-point

Hi Stephen, I confirm your observation. AFAIK the current JIT keeps informations from the module, for example AssertingHandle on Values. It's part of my plan to make the MCJIT independent from Module stuff to allow reoptimizations, or to have multiple copies of JITed functions for one function in the module, but there is a long road to go. Olivier. On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Stephen

Hi Tim, Thanks for the thorough explanation. It makes perfect sense. I was not aware fast-math is supposed to prevent more precision being used than what is in the standard. I came across this issue while looking into the output or different compilers. XL and Microsoft compiler seem to have that turned on by default. But I assume that clang follows what gcc does, and have that turned off.

On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 22:00 -0400, Samuel F Antao wrote: > Alexey, Alexander, > > Thanks for the suggestions. I tried removing the flag SA_NODEFER but > it didn't do any good... I have been digging into the problem with the > null_deref test today but I was unable to clearly identify the > problem. I suspect that it was either a bug with the calling > convention/unwinding

Hi Bill, I'm coincidently planning right now on doing exactly the same things as you. I haven't yet had a chance to implement the code, but I can point you to how I currently believe you can get access to what you need. If you take a look at the code for the implementation of lvm::JIT::runJITOnFunction(Function *, MachineCodeInfo *), you'll see that if a MachineCodeInfo parameter is