similar to: [LLVMdev] legalization of truncating stores in LegalizeDAG.cpp

Hi Akira, On 01/06/12 02:27, Hatanaka, Akira wrote: > In LegalizeDAG.cpp, truncating stores are custom-lowered in line 1314-1317: > > 1314 case TargetLowering::Custom: > 1315 ReplaceNode(SDValue(Node, 0), > 1316 TLI.LowerOperation(SDValue(Node, 0), DAG)); > 1317 break; > > Is there a reason it doesn't check whether the

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:36, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/23/2017 5:21 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote: >> Hi Eli, >> >> I would like to clarify generally what the difference is between returning SDValue() and Op (input argument unchanged) from LowerOperation()? >> >> My understanding is that returning SDValue()

> -----Original Message----- > From: Duncan Sands [mailto:baldrick at free.fr] > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 5:23 PM > To: Sanjiv Kumar Gupta - I00171 > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5 > > Hi Sanjiv, > > > Well, the first email is here. > > > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon- >

Hi Sanjiv, > Well the magnitude of the task is not small. > ExpandIntegerOperand() calls LowerOperation() to allow targets to handle > illegal operands. So we will need to change the interface of > LowerOperation() to pass an extra argument called Results, which is an > array of SDValue. Targets will push the result values in this array and > then we can replace values in

Thanks, for insight, Eli, So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we can do much better if bool would use

Hi Dmitry, > So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one > should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); > and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. > > But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect > such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we > can do much better if

Hi, On 01/22/2016 05:02 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:58:49PM +0100, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm a litle bit puzzled by the TargetLowering::LowerOperation function, >> and what different callers of this function assumes about the returned >> value. >> > SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp() is your best

Hi Duncan, > did you declare i1 to be an illegal type? No. How? 2012/6/30 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: > Hi Dmitry, >> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one >> should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); >> and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. >> >> But this issue makes a

Okay, few issues here: First, i1 is used in the NVPTX back-end to map to the predicate (.pred) type. We definitely do not want to declare this type as illegal. The real issue is lack of complete support for this type. The PTX language places restrictions on what can be done with .pred registers, and it looks like the failure is here: kernelgen_hostcall.exit228: ; preds =

Thanks, that sounds like it would work. Was this based on what any other target did? Or do any other targets take this approach? I just want to make sure that we don't already have a hook suitable for this. Overriding runOnFunction to run what could be described as just a "late SelectionDAG pass" sounds pretty intrusive. Do you remember other approaches that didn't work? --

In our (NVIDIA's) NVVM IR spec, we define i1 having a memory size of 8 bit. setOperationAction(ISD::LOAD, MVT::i1, Custom); setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); is the right way to go. Yuan From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Justin Holewinski Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 9:55 AM To: Dmitry N. Mikushin Cc: llvmdev at

Hi Dmitry, >> did you declare i1 to be an illegal type? > > No. How? I think it will be considered illegal if you don't add it to any register class. Ciao, Duncan. > > 2012/6/30 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: >> Hi Dmitry, >>> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one >>> should probably do

OK, thanks. For our project I implemented a similar workaround: extend each i1 memory item to i8 and load/store i1 to i8 with a type cast. Still, the issue in NVPTX remains. I don't know whether NVIDIA or community fellows have any reasonable priority to fix it (or at least put an NYI assertion!). It seems to be quite more complex, than implementing custom lowering handler, that's why

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:13 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > > >> Evan Cheng wrote: >> >>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 5:35 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I'm trying to write a backend for a target with no hardware floating >>>> point support. I've added a single i32 register class. I'm

> > FastCC use to be caller pops arguments so there was no stack > > adjustment after the > > call to qux. Now FastCC has callee pops arguments on return semantics > > so the > > x86 backend inserts a stack adjustment after the call. > > > > _array: > > subl $12, %esp > > movss LCPI1_0, %xmm0 > > mulss

Hi Duncan, Sorry I don't understand your point, could you please explain a little bit more? Why i1 should be declared illegal? Operations on byte-wide types like char or bool are pretty legal, according to PTX spec: "Registers may be typed (signed integer, unsigned integer, floating point, predicate) or untyped. Register size is restricted; aside from predicate registers which are

I believe this patch has broken a PPC app that I am tracking. Here is a reduced test case. Reproduce with llc -mattr=+Altivec -mcpu=g5. The backtrace looks like this: #0 0x9333ae42 in __kill () #1 0x9333ae34 in kill$UNIX2003 () #2 0x933ad23a in raise () #3 0x933b9679 in abort () #4 0x933ae3db in __assert_rtn () #5 0x0008bd8f in llvm::MVT::getVectorElementType (this=0xbfffdda4) at

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Dmitry N. Mikushin <maemarcus at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi again, > > Kind people on #llvm helped me to utilize bugpoint to reduce the > previously submitted test case. For record, it code be done with the > following command: > > $ bugpoint -llc-safe test.ll > > The resulting IR is attached, and it is crashing in the same way. Is >

Things are still broken. Unfortunately llvm test suite does not contain enough vector code to fully test this. Can you revert the patch first? Evan On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Scott Michel wrote: > Evan: > > I did not encounter this back trace before I committed the newest > BuildVectorSDNode patch, which removed all class instance members > and passes results back via

On Aug 28, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Aug 28, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > >>> This is a (very) rough patch to fix building LLVM with exceptions on >>> PPC Darwin. Basically, it puts the burden of adding the "--enable- >>> eh" >>> on the specific target, which is where I think it should go. >> >> I