similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: optimizing integer overflow checks

Hi, The first patch fixes the implementation of umul.with.overflow on x86 which was throwing a 'Cannot yet select' error. The second patch fixes the definition of LLVMTypeKind in the C binding by syncing it with the c++ counterpart. Please review and commit if it looks ok. thanks Zoltan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

I have written many builtins for our SHAVE processor which bind directly to our instructions, and making instructions that are not easily selectable by the compiler available to the programmer. The majority of these are straight-forward enough, taking a small number pf input operands and returning a single result; for example 'int __builtin_shave_mul(int, int)' might map onto a simple

Hi, Forgot the patch... Zoltan On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Zoltan Varga <vargaz at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > The first patch fixes the implementation of umul.with.overflow on x86 > which was throwing a 'Cannot yet select' error. > The second patch fixes the definition of LLVMTypeKind in the C binding by > syncing it with the c++

I've run into cases where, because not all of LLVM's optimizations understand the semantics of the `llvm.$op.with.overflow` intrinsics, canonicalizing compares to `llvm.$op.with.overflow` ends up preventing optimization. For instance, running the following snippet through `opt -indvars` optimizes `%to.optimize` to `true`, but running it through `opt -instcombine -indvars` does not. ```

CGP also relies on the add being a simple two's complement add, since it will transform define void @test1(i64 %a, i64 %b, i64* %res_i64, i1* %res_i1) { entry: %add = add i64 %b, %a %cmp = icmp ult i64 %add, %a store i1 %cmp, i1* %res_i1 store i64 %add, i64* %res_i64 ret void } to define void @test1(i64 %a, i64 %b, i64* %res_i64, i1* %res_i1) { entry: %uadd.overflow = call

I'm writing a front end for an existing interpreted language with slightly odd semantics for primitive values. Similar to the values in a database table, any value could be null, even for non-pointer types. For example a boolean variable could be true, false, or null. To model this behaviour, I'm passing an {i1, [type]} around for every numeric type. And using insertvalue / extractvalue

Hi, I'm working with some hand-written LLVM IR which llvm-as doesn't like, giving me the error "Invalid indices for extractvalue". However, as far as I can tell, the code is valid according to the Language Reference Manual. A cut-down example of the kind of code in question is: %struct.s = type {i32,i32,<2 x i32>} define void @entry(i32* %out) { %1 = extractvalue

> > On Thursday 19 February 2009 19:00:14 Jon Harrop wrote: >> I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any >> performance >> improvement from optimization passes... > > I just disassembled some of the IR before and after optimization. > This example > function squares a complex number: Something is definitely wrong with the way

I'm having an issue where a certain set of types and insert/extractvalue are producing the incorrect values. It appears as though extractvalue getting my sub-structure is not getting the correct data. I have these types: %outer = type { i32, %inner, i1 } %inner = type { double, i32 } The trouble is that when I have a value of type %outer then proceed to extract the components of the

Hi all, sorry to have sent the same question around. I am quite desperately looking for a solution to this problem and I figured the mailing list is the best bet. In my code, I generate the following function: define i32 @gl.qi([500 x i32] %x, i32 %i) { entry: %x. = alloca [500 x i32] %i. = alloca i32 %0 = alloca [500 x i32] store [500 x i32] %x, [500 x i32]* %x. store i32 %i, i32*

Hi Andrew, > If I change the code such that the structure is defined with a > 2-element array instead of a 2-element vector: > %struct.s = type {i32,i32,[2 x i32]} > then llvm-as does not report an error, hence why I believe the problem > is specific to accessing vector components. correct, extractvalue doesn't work on vectors, you need to use to use extractelement for

Hi, The 'extractvalue' and 'insertvalue' instructions only allow constant indices. If I have an array with variable indices, I need to store it into memory, and then load its sub-elements via GEP. Why could 'extractvalue' not support variable indices like GEP? In general, in which case should source code be translated into 'extractvalue' , and when should

Hi all, I'm interested in the impact of representing code via intrinsic functions, in contrast to via an instruction, when it comes to performing dead instruction/code elimination. As a concrete example, lets consider the simple case of the llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics. If I have some sequence (> 1) of llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics, as in the form of: @global = global i32 0

Hi, On 22-02-16 13:41, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > Hi there, > > On 02/22/2016 12:26 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: <snip> >> So back to the problem of getting OpenCL(ish) code to work again with >> the recent mesa changes. For starters I would like to get: >> >> src/gallium/tests/trivial/compute.c and then the test with mask 8, >> test_input_global() to work

Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 19:56, David Greene via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> llvm.creal.* - Overloaded intrinsic to extract the real part of a >> complex value >> declare float @llvm.creal.c32(c32 %Val) >> declare double @llvm.creal.c64(c64 %Val) > > What are

Hi Dan, > The requirement to update all callers' call instructions when a callee > gets a new return value is also present in the current MRV-mechanism > with getresult. It's not been a problem we've worried about so far. I didn't mean you can get away without updating your calllers, I'm just saying it could be a bit easier. > Can you give some background about

[Adding the correct cfe-dev mailing list address.] On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:06 AM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Now that ASM goto support has landed, Nick Desaulniers and I wrote up a > document describing how to expand clang's implementation of ASM goto to > support output constraints. The work *should* be straight-forward, but as > always will need to

I also saw this issue before. Llvm seems have trouble returning general struct values from functions. One easy workaround is to use packed struct type. Hope this helps. -Peng On Sunday, December 30, 2012, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having an issue where a certain set of types and insert/extractvalue > are producing the incorrect values. It appears as though extractvalue >

Hi, On 22-02-16 14:04, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > > On 02/22/2016 01:46 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 22-02-16 13:41, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: >>> Hi there, >>> >>> On 02/22/2016 12:26 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> So back to the problem of getting OpenCL(ish) code to work again with

On May 19, 2010, at 7:07 AM, o.j.sivart at gmail.com wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm interested in the impact of representing code via intrinsic functions, in contrast to via an instruction, when it comes to performing dead instruction/code elimination. As a concrete example, lets consider the simple case of the llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics. > > If I have some sequence (> 1)