similar to: [LLVMdev] Bug in SUB expansion going back to LLVM 2.6

On May 21, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I found a bug in the expansion code for SUB going back to at least LLVM 2.6 and still shows up in trunk. > case ISD::SUB: { > EVT VT = Node->getValueType(0); > assert(TLI.isOperationLegalOrCustom(ISD::ADD, VT) && > TLI.isOperationLegalOrCustom(ISD::XOR, VT) && > "Don't

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 > and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you > anticipating something more

On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > 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

The LegalizeDAG.cpp file has this code in SelectionDAGLegalize::PromoteNode: case ISD::BSWAP: { unsigned DiffBits = NVT.getSizeInBits() - OVT.getSizeInBits(); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, dl, NVT, Tmp1); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::BSWAP, dl, NVT, Tmp1); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::SRL, dl, NVT, Tmp1, DAG.getConstant(DiffBits, TLI.getShiftAmountTy()));

On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:38 PMPST, Bill Wendling wrote: > The LegalizeDAG.cpp file has this code in > SelectionDAGLegalize::PromoteNode: > > case ISD::BSWAP: { > unsigned DiffBits = NVT.getSizeInBits() - OVT.getSizeInBits(); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, dl, NVT, Tmp1); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::BSWAP, dl, NVT, Tmp1); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::SRL, dl,

Hi Javier, > The problem is the implementation of the expansion. Perhaps an example > can help illustrate better. Take the case of a 64-bit integer shifted > left by say 6 bits and is decomposed using 32-bit registers. Because 6 > is less than the 32 (the register size) the resulting low part should be > equal to the source low part shifted left by 6 bits. The current >

I think it’s generally true that whenever branches can reliably be predicted branching is faster than a cmov that involves speculative execution, and I would guess that your assessment regarding looping on input values is probably correct. I believe the code that actually creates most of the transformation you’re interested in here is in SelectionDAGLegalize::ExpandNode() in LegalizeDAG.cpp. The

Sounds like the select lowering issue is definitely separate from the FENV work. Is there a bug report with a C or IR example? You want to generate compare and branch instead of a cmov for something like this? int foo(float x) { if (x < 42.0f) return x; return 12; } define i32 @foo(float %x) { %cmp = fcmp olt float %x, 4.200000e+01 %conv = fptosi float %x to i32 %ret = select

Hi Duncan, The problem is the implementation of the expansion. Perhaps an example can help illustrate better. Take the case of a 64-bit integer shifted left by say 6 bits and is decomposed using 32-bit registers. Because 6 is less than the 32 (the register size) the resulting low part should be equal to the source low part shifted left by 6 bits. The current implementation places a zero

Thanks, Andy. I'm not sure how to solve that or my case given the DAG's basic-block limit. Probably CodeGenPrepare or SelectionDAGBuilder...or we wait until after isel and try to split it up in a machine instruction pass. I filed my example here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33013 Feel free to comment there and/or open a new bug for the FP_TO_UINT case. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at

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, I'm working in adding support for 64-bit integers to my target. I'm using LLVM to decompose the 64-bit integer operations by using 32-bit registers wherever possible and emulating support where not. When looking at the bit shift decomposition I saw what seems to be a bug in the implementation. The affected function is ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit in LegalizeIntegerTypes.cpp.

Hi all, While I test "clang-tests/gcc-4_2-testsuite/src/gcc.c-torture/execute/20020226-1.c", I faced something wrong with "DAGCombiner::MatchRotate" function. This function tries to consume some patterns and generate "ROTL" or "ROTR" dag node as following comments: "DAGCombier::MatchRotate" function in DAGCombiner.cpp Pattern1 // fold (or

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 look sane? -Eli -------------- next part -------------- Index: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorOps.cpp

Richard Pennington wrote: > My target doesn't support 64 bit arithmetic, so I'd like to supply > definitions for adde/addc. The problem is I can't seem to figure out the > magic. Here's an example of what I need to generate: > > # two i64s in r5/r6 and r7/r8 > # result in r1/r2, carry in r3 > > # adde > add r2, r6, r8 > cmpltu r3, r2, r6 #

My target doesn't support 64 bit arithmetic, so I'd like to supply definitions for adde/addc. The problem is I can't seem to figure out the magic. Here's an example of what I need to generate: # two i64s in r5/r6 and r7/r8 # result in r1/r2, carry in r3 # adde add r2, r6, r8 cmpltu r3, r2, r6 # compute carry # addc add r1, r5, r7 add r1, zero, r3 Is this

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Javier Martinez <javier at jmartinez.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working in adding support for 64-bit integers to my target. I'm using > LLVM to decompose the 64-bit integer operations by using 32-bit registers > wherever possible and emulating support where not. When looking at the bit > shift decomposition I saw what seems to be a

This code lives in DAGCombiner.cpp: ------------- // Turn 'store float 1.0, Ptr' -> 'store int 0x12345678, Ptr' if (ConstantFPSDNode *CFP = dyn_cast<ConstantFPSDNode>(Value)) { // NOTE: If the original store is volatile, this transform must not increase // the number of stores. For example, on x86-32 an f64 can be stored in one // processor operation but

Hello LLVM, A recent commit creates the isIntDivCheap() target query. http://reviews.llvm.org/D12082 The current approach has a couple shortcomings. First, when targets decide divide is cheap, the DAGCombiner ignores obvious power-of-2 optimizations. In the targets I know, shifts are cheaper than divides in both speed and size. The target cannot see the value in the isIntDivCheap() call, so

On Jul 1, 2009, at 2:22 PMPDT, Dan Gohman wrote: >> Ops.push_back(DAG.getConstant(1, MVT::i32)); >> Chain = DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, DAG.getVTList(MVT::Other, MVT::i32), >> &Ops[0], Ops.size()); >> >> Isn't that the way how it is supposed to work? > > ADD does not use a chain, so there's no chain operand, or > MVT::Other result for it in an ADD