similar to: [LLVMdev] interesting minor llvm optimizer flaw

This variant works: class ArithLogicRTest16<string I, SDNode OpNode, bit isComm = 0>: FRRR16<!cast<FRRR16_ins>(I).f, (outs CPU16Regs:$rx), (ins CPU16Regs:$ry, CPU16Regs:$rz), // !cast<FRRR16_ins>(I).OutOperandList, // !cast<FRRR16_ins>(I).InOperandList, !cast<FRRR16_ins>(I).AsmString, [(set CPU16Regs:$rx,

I think that what I did originally should have worked and the bug was correct as I reported it. Here is an alternate implementation which has the same problem. class ArithLogicRTest16<string I, SDNode OpNode, bit isComm = 0>: FRRR16<!cast<FRRR16_ins>(I).f, !cast<FRRR16_ins>(I).OutOperandList, !cast<FRRR16_ins>(I).InOperandList,

I've filed the following bug. Maybe I'm doing something stupid here or maybe someone knows of a workaround. The following fragment from mips16 (not yet checked into main source). The problem is that I should be able to pass parameters: I.OutOperandList, I.InOperandList But instead, I must back substitute what I know the values of these are. (outs CPU16Regs:$rx), (ins CPU16Regs:$ry,

Not sure what you mean. I.OutOperandList == (outs CPU16Regs:$rx) I.InOperandList == (ins CPU16Regs:$ry, CPU16Regs:$rz) On 07/02/2012 09:26 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > I think you're missing the template args for `FRRR16_ins` in the first > argument. The switch in TGParser::ParseType() doesn't cover the case > of types with template args though... which makes me wonder what is

class FRRR16_ins<bits<2> _f, string asmstr, list<dag> pattern, InstrItinClass itin> : // ... This class has template args. You don't specify them in the first template arg of class ArithLogicR16<FRRR16_ins I, SDNode OpNode, bit isComm = 0>: // ... --Sean Silva On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Not sure what you mean.

I think you're missing the template args for `FRRR16_ins` in the first argument. The switch in TGParser::ParseType() doesn't cover the case of types with template args though... which makes me wonder what is going on inside of TableGen to make `I.f` and `I.AsmString` valid... --Sean Silva On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:07 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > I've filed

I'm getting this error in my mips16 port. I think that PHI replacement is done in some target independent phase. In the process of debugging this. Maybe to someone else it's obvious how this can happen . tia, Reed *** Bad machine code: MBB exits via unconditional fall-through but its successor differs from its CFG successor! *** - function: main - basic block: BB#0 entry

YOu have to look for which DAG fragments are not being matched. Then you can create patterns for those using alternate sequences. When you disablea given instruction, don't just disable it, but also look at what pattern it was matching. Then create a patten for that using remaining instructions or in some cases you might have to call a library function, as in the case of floating

Here is a simple place I wanted to use it. ... On multiply, the result implicit is placed in a 64 bit hi/lo register. // // Format: MFLO rx MIPS16e // Purpose: Move From LO Register // To copy the special purpose LO register to a GPR. // def Mflo16: FRR16_M_ins<0b10010, "mflo", IIAlu> { let Uses = [LO]; let neverHasSideEffects = 1; } // // Pseudo Instruction for mult //

Thanks for your reply. We are trying to implement a simple Mips-based CPU with just for teaching purpose, so we delete some instructions which are not commonly used, thus the task won't be too hard for students. I am responsible for modifying the compiler so that the compiler won't emit unsupported instructions. In order to avoid "can not select" error, I am trying to expand

Chris Lattner wrote: >>It is possible to write multi-instruction pattern, e.g. >>X86InstrSSE.td line 1911. But how are you defining HI16 and LO16? >>Sounds like you want to define them as SDNodeXform that returns upper >>and lower 16 bits respectively. Take a look at PSxLDQ_imm in >>X86InstrSSE.td as an example. > > > Another good example is the PPC

Does anyone understand the purpose of this target inpdendent function? By adding a new register class that is for MIPS16 but not even referencing it, the compiler breaks because of this code. def CPU16Regs : RegisterClass<"Mips", [i32], 32, (add // Return Values and Arguments V0, V1, A0, A1, A2, A3, // Callee save S0, S1 )>; I'm trying to understand how the

What have you tried? On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Kotler, Reed <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > This Pattern class says it's possible but seems just to not work or maybe I'm using it incorrectly. > > Probably I will go and fix it when I'm done with mips16. > > > ________________________________________ > From: Hal Finkel [hfinkel at anl.gov] > Sent:

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: >> - How does one deal with multiple instruction sequences in a pattern? >> To load a constant is a two instruction sequence, but both >> instructions only take two operands (assume that r3 is a 32-bit >> register): >> >> ilhu $3, 45 # r3 = (45 << 16) >> iohl $3, 5 # r3 |= 5

This Pattern class says it's possible but seems just to not work or maybe I'm using it incorrectly. Probably I will go and fix it when I'm done with mips16. ________________________________________ From: Hal Finkel [hfinkel at anl.gov] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:59 AM To: Anton Korobeynikov Cc: Kotler, Reed; LLVM-Dev ‎[llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu]‎ Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Pattern

what's the semantics for setCC if one of the operands is NULL pointer? %ptr=alloc int seteq int*, %pt, NULL what's the result for the second instruction? How about setne, setlt, setgt, setle, and setge? Thanks! Jianzhong

Hello, Past few days I have been working on a DLX Target for LLVM using the Mips Target as a base. Coming along quite well, currently ran into two problems with my sample/test program. The main issue I am having is with respect to the following (Note: I have already changed ADDui from ADDiu) We have this def ADDui : ArithI<0x09, "addui", add, simm16, immSExt16>; However

On Jan 9, 2007, at 5:23 PM, Scott Michel wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >>> It is possible to write multi-instruction pattern, e.g. >>> X86InstrSSE.td line 1911. But how are you defining HI16 and LO16? >>> Sounds like you want to define them as SDNodeXform that returns >>> upper >>> and lower 16 bits respectively. Take a look at PSxLDQ_imm in

Hello, why LLVM does not define physical register limits for MIPS by overriding the TargetRegisterInfo::getRegPressureLimit function the way it’s done for X86 in x86RegisterInfo.cpp and ARM. Thanks in advance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120818/a8e4f353/attachment.html>

There can also be other “problems" like this one: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6946 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D6946> - Matthias > On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The DAG combiner also performs the undefined shift -> undef though, so it >> should still be OK > > DAG combiner doesn't really run to