similar to: [LLVMdev] VLIW code generation for LLVM backend

Yang, There is work currently underway to add SW pipelining and some sort of global scheduling to Hexagon, but if there is some interest to it from other targets, it would be helpful to know. What is your involvement with this? Sergei Larin -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum. > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu

Larin, Thank you for telling me about this. Our lab is planning to design a VLIW DSP and has to make a choice between GCC and LLVM, for which I take responsibility. As we all know that GCC's codes possess a long history and has a somewhat bad learning curve, I suggest choosing LLVM. It seems now the only drawback is its poor support for VLIW architecture. And so if we can count on

Sergei, Thank you for your attention. My target is a custom VLIW DSP. I am not sure dependency dag is correct when it gets scheduled and packetized. Months ago, I submitted a bug at http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17894 which explained more details. I am not sure my understanding of this bug is proper, but modified my local codes this way and it works for my target when scheduling and

Yang, This might not be such a tough choice on engineering side - one of the LLVM differentiators is the ground-up, early introduced support for VLIW specific features... As for the help offer - thanks... I'll definitely keep that in mind. The best help right now would be to keep on trying new VLIW related features as they got merged to LLVM tree and provide feedback... and we do plan to

On Aug 9, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Yang, > > This might not be such a tough choice on engineering side - one of the > LLVM differentiators is the ground-up, early introduced support for VLIW > specific features… Actually, LLVM lacked support for VLIW until fairly recently, and it has relatively few VLIW-specific features. Dan

But we are really striving to change it fast :) Dan, My comparative point was that LLVM has a greater potential to accommodate VLIW going forward than GCC does at this point. Would you agree to that? Sergei -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Gohman [mailto:gohman at apple.com] > Sent: Friday, August 10,

Hi, I notice that there exist some classes for VLIW packetizing and other classes for VLIW scheduling. Apparently these classes share something in common. Can someone explain why they should have separate implementation (i.e., in different function passes)? Best regards. -- 杨勇勇 (Yang Yongyong)

Hi Yang, They have different implementations because they don't do the same thing and don't rely on the same structures. VLIW scheduling works on the SelectionDAG, right after the instruction selection, and it will schedule the DAG but it will not build any packet. The VLIW packetizer has been designed to work with machine instructions, using the ScheduleDAGInstr, and it does build

Hi, all, When I schedule machine instructions in a VLIW way and packetize them, a problem is encountered, and I will show it use a simplified case as follows. ############ original instruction sequence ... insn1 ... jump LBB0_xx ... LBB0_xx: ... ############ expected instruction sequence after scheduling and packetizing insn1; jump LBB0_xx ... LBB0_xx: ... ############ generated instruction

hi, does someone notice that llc options "-march=hexagon" and "-march-sparcv9" do not work well under llvm 3.1? Following is a brief description: (1) test.c file int cmp(int i, int j) { return (i>j)?1:0; } (2) test.ll file (clang -emit-llvm test.c -S -o test.ll) ; ModuleID = 'test.c' target datalayout =

sorry, llc -march=hexagon -mcpu=hexagonv2 test.ll -o test.s works. 2012/7/3 Triple Yang <triple.yang at gmail.com>: > hi, > > does someone notice that llc options "-march=hexagon" and > "-march-sparcv9" do not work well under llvm 3.1? > > Following is a brief description: > (1) test.c file > > int cmp(int i, int j) { > return

Hi all, I'd recommend Andy Trick be made code owner of "instruction scheduling" (including MI, pre-RA, and post-RA schedulers). I am also recommending Nadav Rotem be made code owner of "loop vectorizer". Evan

On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd recommend Andy Trick be made code owner of "instruction scheduling" (including MI, pre-RA, and post-RA schedulers). I am also recommending Nadav Rotem be made code owner of "loop vectorizer". Sergei Larin can take ownership of VLIW scheduling. Most of the support

the example is more like what i need,it is so nice. but,i am indefinite if "RUN: FileCheck < %t.s %s" can pass,i understand that t.s was translate from t.ll,%s means read the local source,are they the same? On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Triple Yang <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote: > I did an experiment just now with a test case like: > // RUN: clang %s -S -emit-llvm

Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> writes: > - We do need to have a way to assign bundles much earlier than we do now. Yeah, I can imagine why this would be useful. > And it needs to be intertwined with scheduling (Bundler currently reuses a > good chunk of scheduler infrastructure). Just to clarify, is the need due to the current bundling implementation of reusing

Wang, Attachment is a simple example, you may put it in test/CodeGen, and run with llvm-lit C90 It worked ok in my llvm 3.2 devel. Let know if you run into any trouble. Regards. 2012/8/27 Changcheng Wang <changcheng at multicorewareinc.com>: > hi,Yang: > if you can give me a examle,which check out a string(such as "abcd") > from a file(such as aaa.c) with fileCheck?

2012/8/28 Changcheng Wang <changcheng at multicorewareinc.com>: > hi,yang: > another question，i write a test like this: > /*****test start******/ > ; RUN: llc -march=c < %s | FileCheck %s > > ; ModuleID = 'hello.c' > target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64- >

hi,yang: thanks,i replaced "{helloworld}" with "helloworld" as you said,and the test run well on llvm version 3.0,but fail on llvm 162227,is it right? llvm version 162227 do not support it? your, changcheng On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Triple Yang <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/8/28 Changcheng Wang <changcheng at multicorewareinc.com>: >>

You are welcome. /* example.c */ // RUN: clang %s -S -O0 -emit-llvm -o %t.ll // RUN: llc %t.ll -O0 -march=x86 -o %t.s // RUN: FileCheck < %t.s %s // CHECK: fct unsigned int fct(unsigned int n) { if(n>0) return fct(n-1)*n; else return 1; } /* end example.c */ /* lit.local.cfg */ config.suffixes = ['.c', '.cpp', '.ll'] targets =

hi,Yang: if you can give me a examle,which check out a string(such as "abcd") from a file(such as aaa.c) with fileCheck? i tried to write it but failed. thanks for your help! best wished! changcheng On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Triple Yang <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote: > I guess so. > FileCheck has powerful extensions than just matching some strings so that >