similar to: [LLVMdev] How to define macros in a tablegen file?

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. Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Sebastian Pop > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:39 PM > To:

Hi Jakob, > New_MI_1:: Vreg1 = 0 ; Vreg1 and Vreg2 > are 32 bit virt. regs. > New_MI_2:: Vreg2 = COPY C:lo_sub_reg. > New_MI_3:: B= REG_SEQUENCE<Vreg1, hi_sub_reg, Vreg2, lo_sub_reg> ; B > is a > 64 bit virt reg. I used this approach and it worked find until I hit, what I believe is, a bug in the register coalescer. When the register

This is the definition of BITCAST in include/llvm/CodeGen/ISDOpcodes.h: // BITCAST - This operator converts between integer, vector and FP // values, as if the value was stored to memory with one type and loaded // from the same address with the other type (or equivalently for vector // format conversions, etc). The source and result are required to have // the same bit size (e.g. f32 <->

Hi Akira, > This is the definition of BITCAST in include/llvm/CodeGen/ISDOpcodes.h: > > // BITCAST - This operator converts between integer, vector and FP > // values, as if the value was stored to memory with one type and loaded > // from the same address with the other type (or equivalently for vector > // format conversions, etc). The source and result are required to have

Hi Duncan and llvm developers, The attached patch makes the function return true if the conversion is between a vector and an integer of the same size. Please review when you have time. On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Akira, > > > This is the definition of BITCAST in include/llvm/CodeGen/ISDOpcodes.h: > > > > //

Type::canLoslesslyBitCastTo(Type *Ty) in lib/VMCore/Type.cpp always returns false when it checks whether an integer can be bitcast to a vector or vice versa. For example, (i32 => v2i16) or (v2i16 => i32) is false. But it seems that it returns true if it is checking conversion between two vector types which have the same size. For example, (v4i8 => v2i16) would return true. What is the

If v4i8 is a legal type then getTypeToPromoteTo should return the pair v4i8 and 'legal'. This looks like the root of the problem. -----Original Message----- From: Villmow, Micah [mailto:Micah.Villmow at amd.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 22:10 To: Rotem, Nadav; Developers Mailing List Subject: RE: Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]> v4i8 itself is a legal type, just not

v4i8 itself is a legal type, just not on the 'AND' operation. So there seems to be multiple problems here. 1) PromoteVectorOp doesn't handle the case where the types are not the same size, this occurs because #2 2) getTypeToPromoteTo doesn't actual check to see if the type it should promote to makes any sense. 3) PromoteVectorOp also doesn't handle the case where

Notice that PromoteVectorOp is called after the type legalization legalized all of the types in the program. It legalizes the *operations*, not the types. So, you should only see legal types (Legal types are types that fit into your registers). So, if your target has v2i32, I suspect that v4i8 is an illegal because it has a different size. -----Original Message----- From: Villmow, Micah

Hrmm.... PromoteVectorOp doesn't seem to follow this at all. http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorOps.cpp SDValue VectorLegalizer::PromoteVectorOp(SDValue Op) { // Vector "promotion" is basically just bitcasting and doing the operation // in a different type. For example, x86 promotes ISD::AND on v2i32 to // v1i64. EVT VT =

Hi, I am trying to understand how vector type legalization works. In particular, I'm looking at i8 vector types on x86 (with sse42 features) v3i8 gets widened to v4i8 and then operations get unrolled (scalarized) because v4i8 is not a legal type whereas v4i8 gets promoted to v4i32. Why doesn't v3i8 (or even v4i8) get widened to v16i8? Alternatively, v3i8 could be widened to v4i8 then

Hi Paul, You can read about it here: http://blog.llvm.org/2011/12/llvm-31-vector-changes.html > Hi, > > I am trying to understand how vector type legalization works. In particular, I'm looking at i8 vector types on x86 (with sse42 features) > > v3i8 gets widened to v4i8 and then operations get unrolled (scalarized) because v4i8 is not a legal type whereas v4i8 gets This

Hi Nadav, On 2013-08-12 12:59 PM, "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: >Hi Paul, > >You can read about it here: >http://blog.llvm.org/2011/12/llvm-31-vector-changes.html > >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to understand how vector type legalization works. In >>particular, I'm looking at i8 vector types on x86 (with sse42 features)

This is a bug in the implementation of WidenVecRes_Binary. On line 1546 it assumes that “Widen” is the last phase of type-legalization and we check if the result is a legal type. But actually we want to continue and promote the elements of the vector. In other cases we may want to widen (to the next power of two) and later split in half because the vector is too big. On Aug 12, 2013, at 10:46

Hi Jakob, Thanks for your reply. > > The <undef> flag goes on NewMI_1 because the virtual register B isn't live > before that instruction. > > But you probably shouldn't be doing this yourself. Your NewMI code isn't in > SSA form because B has multiple definitions. Just use a REG_SEQUENCE > instruction, and let the register allocator do the transformation

On Jul 8, 2012, at 3:42 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > ********** EXPANDING POST-RA PSEUDO INSTRS ********** > ********** Function: main > real copy: %R15<def> = COPY %R4, %D2<imp-use,kill>, %D7<imp-use,kill>, > %D7<imp-def> > replaced by: %R15<def> = TFR %R4, %D7<imp-def> > > The R4 is a subreg of D2 double

Hello everyone, I am running into an obscure issue with ExpandPostRA. Does anyone recognizes the following: The pass replaces a real copy with a "transfer" instruction: ********** EXPANDING POST-RA PSEUDO INSTRS ********** ********** Function: main real copy: %R15<def> = COPY %R4, %D2<imp-use,kill>, %D7<imp-use,kill>, %D7<imp-def> replaced by:

On Jul 5, 2012, at 6:01 PM, "Pranav Bhandarkar" <pranavb at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Jakob, > >> New_MI_1:: Vreg1 = 0 ; Vreg1 and Vreg2 >> are 32 bit virt. regs. >> New_MI_2:: Vreg2 = COPY C:lo_sub_reg. >> New_MI_3:: B= REG_SEQUENCE<Vreg1, hi_sub_reg, Vreg2, lo_sub_reg> ; B >> is a >> 64 bit

Hi all, I am working on a target that has support for v4i16 vectors, and no support for v4i8 / v8i8 / v8i16 V4i8 is promoted to v4i16 which is nice V8i16 is split to 2 x v4i16 which is nice as well Now v8i8 is scalarized, which is not so nice. Ideally I would like v8i8 to be first promoted to v8i16 then split to 2xv4i16 (or split to 2xV4i8 then promoted to 2xv4i16) Is there a way to achieve

Hello everyone, I wanted to let everybody know that I am going to enable the support for vector-select by default later today. Details: Currently the LLVM code-generator only supports 'select' [1] instructions with a boolean condition. Vectorizing compilers, such as the Intel OpenCL Vectorizer and the GCC vectorizer often use vector-select instructions to implements masks. This change