similar to: [LLVMdev] Hexagon Assembly parser question

On Oct 17, 2012, at 3:29 PM, David Young <davidy at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > I’m trying to enable the hexagon LLVM assembly parser. It seem like there is a lot of work that has been done to make this parsing straightforward. > > But…. > Hexagon assembly does not follow the “Mnemonic Rx Rx …” format that is expected by the assembly parsing infrastructure,

Hi ES, From what I understand instruction parsing is divided into two parts: - Parsing an operand list (XXXAsmParser::ParseInstruction) - Turning the operand list into an actual instruction (XXXAsmParser::MatchAndEmitInstruction) The second part does the validation (e.g. how many operands, what kind, etc) while the first part only does the parsing. That's why I think in the first part

Hello, InstAlias does not allow tied operands (repeated operands) in the asm string to be matched. It seems this situation is explicitly prevented in AsmMatcherEmitter.cpp: if (!Hack) PrintFatalError(TheDef->getLoc(), "ERROR: matchable with tied operand '" + Tok + "' can never be matched!");

Hi, On Instructions you can use checkEarlyTargetMatchPredicate() to check that the operands are the same. There's an example of that in MipsAsmParser.cpp for DATI and DAHI. I can't think of a reason TableGen couldn't be made to allow this for InstAlias too. > On 15 Dec 2017, at 02:12, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > InstAlias

Hi all, in most of the architectures, assembly operands are comma-separated. I would like to parse an assembly code that is space-separated and I am having a bit of problem. In *ParseInstruction* function, I don't know what is the easiest way to figure out how many operands a mnemonic expected to have. In comma-separated assembly code, it just consuming commas (while

Hello all, I would like to assign some bits in the instructions, based on the order of mnemonics that appear in a special order. I can do it in TableGen itself, but it will not be well maintainable based on the things I want to accomplish. Therefor, I would like to do it in the c++ file which is waaay easier (at least in the concept!!). Imagine I have this in my base class in TableGen:

Hello. I am curious why did you changed TableGen to allow in principle only writing ASM instructions in prefix notation. I ask because I personally use an assembly notation that is infix (I could use a simple preprocessor that changes prefix to infix). Just to mention: I found the solution to this - the following part of the code is responsible for this from

Hi, Imagine that your backend has valid asm instruction written like this: "%x mnem %y, %z" And user puts it as inline assembler: __asm__ ("%x mnem %y, %z"); It can not be parsed with current llvm asm parser, because it starts with % (moreover it has mnemonic in second place) Say you written pass, that makes it "mnem %x, %y, %z". Now this guy can be parsed, but

Hi, I try to create a backend to support AsmParser, but it hasn't the red part as below. I find the Mips has this. Do you know how to make it appear? Jonathan #ifdef GET_ASSEMBLER_HEADER #undef GET_ASSEMBLER_HEADER // This should be included into the middle of the declaration of // your subclasses implementation of MCTargetAsmParser. unsigned ComputeAvailableFeatures(uint64_t

Jonathan <gamma_chen at yahoo.com.tw> wrote: > I try to create a backend to support AsmParser, but it hasn't the red part > as below. I find the Mips has this. Do you know how to make it appear? > > Jonathan > > #ifdef GET_ASSEMBLER_HEADER > #undef GET_ASSEMBLER_HEADER > // This should be included into the middle of the declaration of > // your subclasses

Hi everyone. We're interested in contributing a Hexagon assembler to MC and we're looking for comments on a good way to integrate the grammar in to the infrastructure. We rely on having a robust assembler because we have a large base of developers that write in assembly due to low power requirements for mobile devices. We put in some C-like concepts to make the syntax easier and this

I'm trying to implement the standalone assembler for mips and I have encountered a problem in instruction operands matcher. In mips instruction set there are math instructions with two format flags in the mnemonic, one for source and one for destination register. For example ceil.w.s means both source and destination are F32 registers while ceil.l.d means both source and destination are F64

Hi paulr, Thank you for your response :) Hi Krzysztof, This is really helpful! Thank you for your guidance!! I would like to trace the Hexagon's llvm implementation. I am very interested on how Hexagon implement instruction pattern matching, instruction scheduling, and register allocation, could you give me some suggestions or reading lists to help me understand Hexagon's llvm

On May 22, 2012, at 8:05 AM, "Medic, Vladimir" <vmedic at mips.com> wrote: > I'm trying to implement the standalone assembler for mips and I have encountered a problem in instruction operands matcher. > In mips instruction set there are math instructions with two format flags in the mnemonic, one for source and one for destination register. > For example ceil.w.s

On 5/30/2017 11:00 AM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev wrote: > The way I was seeing this happening is by changing incrementally the > parser of the MIR format. Basically, I’d like the parser to get smarter > and smarter to a point where it could understand assembly mnemonics and > build the MachineFunction. The rest of the infrastructure would stay the > same. I'm not sure

I'm trying to add support for inline assembly and I keep getting this error: <jal> "<inline asm>:1:2: error: invalid instruction" which is due to the fact that MatchInstructionImpl() returns Match_MnemonicFail. This function is tablegen'ed in XXXGenAsmMatcher.inc and for some reason it can't find JAL even though I can clearly see it in both MatchTable0[] and

Hello, I want to implement LLVM backend for a specific VLIW hardware. I am working on defining its instruction set, and assembly language. The hardware has two pipelines, int and float. Each pipeline can do 3 operations/cycle, 3 operations forms an instruction. One of the Integer Instruction looks like this: add Ri, Rj, Rk; add Rl, Rm, Rn; add Ro, Rp, Rq An int instruction and a float

Hi, In AsmMatcherEmitter.cpp, the operator “<” for comparing matchables (MatchableInfo objects) only checks matches that require more features as the last rule. I would like to propose that we check for that rule earlier, in the case of unrelated UserClasses, before we decide to set precedence based on UserClass name. The motivation is that unrelated UserClasses seem to be Immediate

I wanted to give everybody a heads-up on upcoming commits for the Hexagon backend. We will be removing support for older versions of the Hexagon architecture - specifically Hexagon-v2 and Hexagon-v3. These are no longer being used by compiler users. Matthew Curtis has committed the first clang patch to remove driver support for these versions. There will be follow-up patches on the LLVM side

On 03/14/2013 12:51 PM, Anshuman Dasgupta wrote: > I wanted to give everybody a heads-up on upcoming commits for the > Hexagon backend. We will be removing support for older versions of the > Hexagon architecture - specifically Hexagon-v2 and Hexagon-v3. These are > no longer being used by compiler users. Matthew Curtis has committed the > first clang patch to remove driver support