similar to: [LLVMdev] template patterns w/ Tablegen

On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I’m trying to write a store pattern that accepts both i32 and f32, > however, when tablegen generates the code, it only generates the > code for i32 only. > > def ADDR : ComplexPattern<i32, 2, "SelectADDR", [], []>; > def MEM : Operand<i32> { > let PrintMethod = "printMemOperand";

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'm trying to write a store pattern that accepts both i32 and f32, however, when tablegen generates the code, it only generates the code for i32 only. def ADDR : ComplexPattern<i32, 2, "SelectADDR", [], []>; def MEM : Operand<i32> { let PrintMethod = "printMemOperand"; let MIOperandInfo = (ops GPR, GPR); } def global_st :

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Grosbach [mailto:grosbach at apple.com] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:41 AM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Creating tablegen patterns for intrinsics with > no return value. > > > On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > > > I have intrinsic with no

Possible to add a test case? Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: Sebastian Pop [mailto:spop at codeaurora.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:40 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How to define macros in a tablegen file? > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Sebastian Pop <spop at

On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I have intrinsic with no return value and I need to match them to machine instructions. If the instruction has a return value I am able to correctly match it, but if I try to create some tablegen code that has no return value, the instruction gets deleted. Hi Micah, >From your description it sounds like machine dead code elimination is

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.

Hi Micah, On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > If the patterns only include SDNodes, then pattern fragments will work. > > I might be wrong, but I've yet to find a way to do it with machine instructions, which is what you seem to have here. I found in the Cell SPU port: lib/Target/CellSPU/SPUMathInstr.td some examples using code

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

That's how ISD::SETCC is specified. If you want to change that for your target, you should custom lower these nodes to target nodes. Then you can specify your own SDNode with your own SDTypeProfile. Evan On Oct 24, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I am attempting to match setcc using tablegen w/ the following > patterns: > def FEQ : Instruction<(outs

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

I have intrinsic with no return value and I need to match them to machine instructions. If the instruction has a return value I am able to correctly match it, but if I try to create some tablegen code that has no return value, the instruction gets deleted. Here is my profile/node/pattern. Profile: def SDTIL_BinAtomNoRet : SDTypeProfile<0, 3, [ SDTCisPtrTy<0>, SDTCisVT<1, i32>,

I believe multiclasses can be nested. Could that help you reduce the duplication? --Sean Silva On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > That is what I currently have, I'm trying to simplify them even further since my multiclass file is enormous because of the amount of combinations. I have things like this: > > multiclass

Are you using isTarget = 1 in your intrinsics file? On Apr 14, 2009, at 6:34 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > It seems that Tablegen is generating intrinsic ID’s off by in > DAGISel.inc > > In DAGISel.inc, I have the following pattern: > int64_t CN1 = Tmp0->getZExtValue(); > > // Pattern: (intrinsic_w_chain:f32 103:iPTR, GPRF32:f32:$src0, > GPRF32:f32:$src1,

That is what I currently have, I'm trying to simplify them even further since my multiclass file is enormous because of the amount of combinations. I have things like this: multiclass instmcRegImm<...> { def rr: inst<...>; def ri: inst<...>; def ir: inst<...>; def ii: inst<...>; } multiclass instmc<...> { defm i8 : instmcRegImm<...>; ^-- repeat for 15

I am trying to make some modifications to our code generator that will produce better code, but require adding new patterns. What I am trying to do is take a register/register pattern and change it to a register/immediate. So for example, I have this pattern: class ILFormat<ILOpCode op, dag outs, dag ins, string asmstr, list<dag> pattern> : Instruction { let Namespace =

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

Hi folks, TableGen provides sufficiently rich syntax for expressing target instruction set. Nevertheless, when I wrote the PTX backend, I observed that some redundancy in TableGen can be further eliminated through macro expansion of for-loops. The semantics of a for-loop is expanding the for-loop body, and so it is equivalent to manually unroll the loop (see example #1). I believe the for-loop

Hi, I am new to LLVM and I find TableGen language really cryptic. The reference manual to the language is not helpful either. I can look at the existing .td file and reverse engineer but I am looking for a detailed manual. Specifically, I have below questions: 1. What is a basic syntax for writing a dag? From the lang ref manual I can see that its something like operator followed by ArgList which

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,