similar to: [LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>"

2012 Jul 31
3
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
Ahh yep, thanks for catching that, new patch attached. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:40 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]> > > Micah, > > I think that your patch is missing the necessary
2012 Aug 01
0
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
Micah, One more thing ;) -- llvm::getEnumName in utils/TableGen/CodeGenTarget.cpp -Hal On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:02:02 +0000 "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Ahh yep, thanks for catching that, new patch attached. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:40 PM
2012 Jul 31
0
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
Micah, I think that your patch is missing the necessary modifications in lib/VMCore/ValueTypes.cpp to EVT::getEVTString() and EVT::getTypeForEVT. -Hal On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:54:24 +0000 "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Vector promotion which is new in LLVM 3.1 is broken for sub32 bit > types. The problem is in the VectorLegalizer::PromoteVectorOp. The
2012 Jul 30
2
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
No, that is correct. I am adding the new types so that I can bitcast v2i8 into a v1i16 and then perform the 'and' operation and have legalize types turn the v1i16 into a scalar. Though I am having trouble in understanding how x86 supports the <1 x i64> type. Based on looking at the code, it should fail because v1i64 is not supported on the x86 platform as far as I can tell. Micah
2012 Jul 30
4
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
Sorry, <4 x i8> should convert to a <1 x i32>. What currently is happening is that it is returning a <2 x i32> because <1 x i32> does not exist. Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: Rotem, Nadav [mailto:nadav.rotem at intel.com] > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:51 AM > To: Villmow, Micah; Developers Mailing List > Subject: RE: Vector promotion broken
2012 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
I think that you attached the wrong patch. The attached patch is the one which adds the new MVT types. From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Villmow, Micah Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 01:54 To: Developers Mailing List Subject: [LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]> Vector promotion which is new in LLVM 3.1 is broken for
2012 Jul 30
2
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
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 =
2012 Jul 30
2
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
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
2012 Jul 30
0
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
I don't know how your target architecture looks like, but I suspect that <4 x i8> should not be legalized to <1 x i32>. I think that what you are seeing is that <4 x i8> is first split into <2 x i8>, and later promoted to <2 x i32>. At the moment different targets can only affect type-legalization by declaring different legal types. A number of us discussed the
2012 Jul 30
0
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
>Though I am having trouble in understanding how  x86 supports the <1 x i64> type. Based on looking at the code, it should fail because v1i64 is not supported on the x86 platform as >far as I can tell. The Type-Legalizer can handle vector types in the following ways: 1. Split - this splits vectors into two halves. For example on SSE4, <4 x i64> is split to <2 x i64> 2.
2012 Jul 30
0
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
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
2012 Jul 30
0
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
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
2012 Jul 30
1
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
The comments in the code state it should do bitcast, op, then bitcast, not extend, op and truncate. "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." So following the same logic <4 x i8> bitcasts into a
2012 Jul 30
0
[LLVMdev] Vector promotion broken for <2 x [i8|i16]>
"Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> writes: > Sorry, <4 x i8> should convert to a <1 x i32>. Why? I'm really confused. Shouldn't this converts to a <4 x i32>? -Dave
2009 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
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
2011 Aug 23
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Splitting init.trampoline into init.trampoline and adjust.trampoline
Hi! Attached set of patches splits llvm.init.trampoline into an "init" phase and an "adjust" phase, as discussed on the "Go on dragonegg" thread. Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Split-intrinsics-and-DAG-nodes.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 8808 bytes Desc:
2009 May 20
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
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 > simplification.  There are still some issues with this patch, but does > the approach
2009 May 21
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
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
2009 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
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
2008 Feb 28
1
[LLVMdev] expanding i16 operations in presence of an i16 regclass.
Reframing and Reposting my earlier query: My target has 16-bit registers for indirect address of data. All other registers are 8-bit. Therefore I have added regclasses for i8 and i16 types. All arithmetic operations (including pointer arithmetic ) are 8-bit operations. The problem is that LLVM does not expand i16 operations to i8 operations in presence of i16 regclass. What is the best way to