similar to: [LLVMdev] Distinguish variadic register defines/uses in MCInstrDesc?

On Sep 24, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Christoph Grenz <christophg+llvm at grenz-bonn.de> wrote: > Is it possible to extend LLVM to check if 'variable_ops' is in 'ins' and/or > 'outs' in tablegen, so that MCInstrDesc could provide something like > hasVariadicDefs() and hasVariadicUses()? > > That way handling variadic instructions when disassembling would be

Hallo, I worked on how to handle the distinction between variadic defines and uses and my current solution is this: I introduce a new dag item in Instruction called VariadicOperandList, which by default is undefined. It keeps a marker variable_* and all operands which are placeholders for variable lists (like 'reglist' on ARM). I think it's the cleanest solution to keep them in a

Am Mittwoch, 26. September 2012, 11:18:20 schrieb Jakob Stoklund Olesen: > Hi Christoph, > > As you noticed, MCInstrDesc doesn't distinguish between variadic uses and > defs. Since variadic instructions will always require some kind of special > handling, it doesn't seem worthwhile to make the model more detailed. I don't see what makes them so different from other

On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2010, at 7:46 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> After Bob fixed the two-address format of the ARM ldm/stm instructions, a problem remains. The load multiple instruction looks like: >> >> // A list of registers separated by comma. Used by load/store multiple. >> def

On Mar 19, 2010, at 7:46 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > Hi, > > After Bob fixed the two-address format of the ARM ldm/stm instructions, a problem remains. The load multiple instruction looks like: > > // A list of registers separated by comma. Used by load/store multiple. > def reglist : Operand<i32> { > let PrintMethod = "printRegisterList"; > }

Hi, After Bob fixed the two-address format of the ARM ldm/stm instructions, a problem remains. The load multiple instruction looks like: // A list of registers separated by comma. Used by load/store multiple. def reglist : Operand<i32> { let PrintMethod = "printRegisterList"; } def LDM : AXI4ld<(outs), (ins addrmode4:$addr, pred:$p, reglist:$dsts,

variable_ops is used in the tablegen defs for many targets to denote instructions that a variable number of inputs, but it seems that there aren't any targets for which this results in variable elements in the instruction encoding (and thus in assembler parsing), since the tablegen generated assembly matcher ($(Target)GenAsmMatcher.inc) simply assumes that variable_ops are not to be parsed

Hi, I wonder if it is okay to add an operand that is not part of MCInstrDesc to an MI after isel? There are things going on like instruction combining, rematerialization etc, which may call MI with TI->get(opcode). If an MI would get replaced with a new instance of itself in this way, any previously added operands would get lost, as they are not part of the MCInstrDesc. RegAlloc, does

On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >>> The description should only have 4 operands + variable_ops. >>> >>> How can you specify a named, variable list of output operands? >> >> Why do you need to do this? You currently can't do it. > > Because an instruction like LDM loads a variable number of registers. When it specifies

Hi everybody, I noticed today that my libLLVM-3.9svn.so has a ~1.7MB .data.rel.ro segment - i.e. data that needs to be touched by the dynamic linker even though it's ultimately read-only, and data that cannot be shared between multiple processes using LLVM. It turns out that a solid ~1.3MB of that data is in the tablegen'd MCInstrDesc tables - there a pointers for ImplicitUses,

On 09.05.2016 05:19, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Nicolai Hähnle <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> I noticed today that my libLLVM-3.9svn.so has a ~1.7MB .data.rel.ro segment >> - i.e. data that needs to be touched by the dynamic linker even though it's >> ultimately read-only, and data that cannot be

Dear all, I am trying to write an AsmParser and a CodeEmitter for simple ADD instruction. Here is what I have in the TestGenInstrInfo.td: *extern const MCInstrDesc TestInsts[] = {...{ 23, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0x0ULL, nullptr, nullptr, OperandInfo13, 0, nullptr }, // Inst #23 = ADD8_rr...}* I parse the instruction successfully but I am not sure what I did wrong that the Size (as you can see in

Hi Micah, the register use list gets dropped by the instruction selector because you didn't specify "variable_ops" in the input operand list of your CALL instruction. It has to look like this: (ins calltarget:$dst, variable_ops) Regards, Christoph

On 25/07/12 12:14, Paul Shortis wrote: > Thanks Richard, > > You're correct, they are similar. In the XCoreInstrInfo.td patterns > what I'm struggling with is why this .... > > def BL_lu10 : _FLU10< > (outs), > (ins calltarget:$target, variable_ops), > "bl $target", >

Hi Chris, Chris Lattner wrote: >> 2) Line 369 of PPCInstrInfo.td, we declare the non-callee saved registers. >> However, Linux and Darwin do not have the same set >> of non-callee saved registers. I don't know how to make the if(isDarwin) test >> in here >> > > Take a look at ARM/ARMRegisterInfo.td for an example of this I tried to define Defs just

On 25/07/12 18:21, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 25 Jul 2012, at 04:49, Paul Shortis wrote: > > >> Hello, >> >> I'm considering creating an LLVM backend for a 16 bit processor and >> modelling it around the (experimental) MSP430 back end. >> >> When reviewing MSP430InstrInfo.td I see >> >> def MSP430Wrapper :

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: >>> Is it possible to dynamically define implicit defs for some >>> instructions? >> >> Yes! This is what explicit operands are :). Specifically, if you >> want to >> vary on a per-opcode basis what registers are used/def'd by the >> instruction,

Hi Serge, Thanks for your help. I have looked at the change log, and so far as I can tell, my implementation is pretty much identical to all of the in-tree targets, but I’m missing something and can’t see what it is. I have simplified my TD description to just: def MyCallseqStart : SDNode<"ISD::CALLSEQ_START", SDCallSeqStart<[SDTCisVT<0, i32>,

Hi, is there currently a way to create a cmpxchg instruction using the C bindings? I only found LLVMBuildAtomicRMW and LLVMBuildFence in the documentation. Regards, Christoph Grenz

Hello LLVM, I'd like to check TSFlags in my AsmBackend code. However AsmBackend objects don't have a reference to MCInstrInfo, which is the only way I've seen to reach TSFlags. A quickie grep shows that none of the existing targets check TSFlags in their AsmBackends. Is there any reason I shouldn't check TSFlags in AsmBackend? If not, what's the best way to go about it?