similar to: [LLVMdev] Pairing Registers on a Target Similar to Mips?

Ryan, I don't think I fully understand the problem you described, but please see the comments below. Hope this helps you solve the problem. On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, ryan baird <ryanrbaird at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm working on a target based on the MIPS target, and when I copy f64 > values into 32 bit registers for calling functions, I need the operation to > work

Hi All, In SVN head, MipsISelDAGToDAG.cpp has the following optimization: // Operand is a result from an ADD. if (Addr.getOpcode() == ISD::ADD) { // When loading from constant pools, load the lower address part in // the instruction itself. Example, instead of: // lui $2, %hi($CPI1_0) // addiu $2, $2, %lo($CPI1_0) // lwc1 $f0, 0($2) // Generate: //

Hello everyone. I use this command clang -emit-llvm hello.c -c -o hello.bc llc hello.bc -march=mipsel -relocation-model=static -o hello.s to produce this MIPS code: .section .mdebug.abi32 .previous .file "hello.bc" .text .globl main .align 2 .type main, at function .set nomips16 # @main .ent main main: .cfi_startproc .frame $sp,32,$ra .mask 0x80000000,-4 .fmask

Hi Chris, Thanks for your response. > 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, you can just add those registers

In X86InstrInfo.td for Call Instructions, it mentions that Uses for argument registers are added manually. Can someone point me to the location where they are added as the comment doesn't reference a where or how? Thanks, Micah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Ping. Anyone that works on the x86 backend have an answer for this one? Thanks, Micah From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Villmow, Micah Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:40 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: [LLVMdev] Question on X86 backend In X86InstrInfo.td for Call Instructions, it mentions that Uses for argument registers are

Hi Micah, > In X86InstrInfo.td for Call Instructions, it mentions that Uses for > argument registers are added manually. Can someone point me to the > location where they are added as the comment doesn't reference a > where or how? the register uses are added by the function X86TargetLowering::LowerCall() during the DAG Lowering phase. This is the relevant code segment: // Add

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 all, When compiling some programs using the Mips backend i'm getting this assert message on lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:227: "Range is not entirely in interval!" I don't know yet if it's something that is missing on the backend code or why the range to be removed it outside the interval, does anyone have any clue? A more detailed output is attached. The program i tried

For my target, I handle incoming memory arguments by creating a store to memory (in LowerCall, [1]), then creating a fixed object on the stack and loading from it (in LowerFormalArguments[2]). This approach was based on MSP430. I now have the problem that the resulting loads in my output assembly are done assuming that the call stack looks something like: ------ MemArg ------ MemArg ------

Hello, I'm part of the (sadly fairly small) community of PS2 hackers. The current cross-toolchain for the PS2 is based on GCC 3.2.3, an outdated and buggy compiler, which I have personally gotten tired of working with, so I would like to port Clang as a newer cross-compiler for the PS2. However, the PS2 has some notable quirks which make this a non-trivial task for the current compiler. It

I believe that table gen builds MipsGenAsmMatcher.inc which has the Match routines like MatchRegisterName(). In building MipsGenAsmMatcher.inc I am hitting the following issue (actually several, but they may be related). It may have something to do with the $$ escape sequence: /home/jcarter/workarea/llvm/lib/Target/Mips/Mips64InstrInfo.td:173:1: error: error: unable to find operand:

Hello Dale, this is an updated version of the tail call optimization patch for powerpc. could you have a look at it? i added code to support ppc64 (untested, will try to get access to ppc64 on a friend's machine). incorporated evan's formatting suggestions. ;) will run another round of testing (llvm-test) on my powerpc g4/800 when i get the okay to commit. testing on this machine takes

On Apr 16, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Hello Dale, > > this is an updated version of the tail call optimization patch for > powerpc. could you have a look at it? > > i added code to support ppc64 (untested, will try to get access to > ppc64 on a friend's machine). > incorporated evan's formatting suggestions. ;) > > will run another round

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > More nitpicks: > ... > No need for else here. :-) Done > SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; > > Just change last statement to > int SPDiff = (int)... Done > > +bool > +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, > +

Hi, When using Wine to run Windows ARM64 executables on Linux, there's one major ABI incompatibility between the two; Windows treats the x18 register as the reserved platform register, while it is free to be clobbered anywhere in code on Linux. The Wine code sets up this register before passing control over to the Windows executable code, but whenever the Windows code calls a function

On Sep 5, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> wrote: > clearKillFlags seems a little "overkill" to me. In this case you could just simply transfer the value of the kill flag from the SrcReg to the DstReg. We are extending the live-range of SrcReg. I do not see how you could relate that to the kill flag of DstReg. Therefore, I still think, this is the

Jim/Tim/Renato, A few days ago (has it been weeks now?) we discussed a codegen problem on armv4t having to do with lo->lo register copies. I'd like to start that discussion again, this time with a patch. A brief summary of the problem for folks who didn't catch the discussion earlier, and those like me who forget what they ate for breakfast: ;] The mov instruction on armv4t

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sat, 13 May 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> in LLVM CVS the afore-mentioned function has 'const TargetRegisterClass*' >> parameter, that is not documented. >> >> Can somebody explain what does it mean? > > Basically, it gives the target more information about the spill. In > particular, it specifies the register class to use

This code or subtle variations of it appears in multiple targets. It tries to convert from a register to a register class using getRegClass, but getRegClass is really supposed to take a register class enum value and get the register class object for it. It doesn't convert a register to a class. In fact there's not always a single or canonical class for a given register. What is the right