similar to: [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [llvm] r162770 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/CodeGen/MachineOperand.h lib/CodeGen/MachineInstr.cpp

Hi Sergei, our use of target flags will be on immediate register operands if I am not mistaken (and if not we can always encode it as such)? I guess you are refering to the hexagon backend needing to distinguish between instances of an instruction that uses a constant value that can fit into the 4 byte of the instruction and one that encodes the immediate in an extra instruction slot (what we

Arnold, I wanted to hear from Jacob is the original patch in question still needed, since our use of this field could surpass const extenders and could potentially include MO_Register. Jacob, Can you please comment? Thanks. Sergei --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnold

On Oct 29, 2012, at 3:28 PM, "Sergei Larin" <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Arnold, > > I wanted to hear from Jacob is the original patch in question still needed, > since our use of this field could surpass const extenders and could > potentially include MO_Register. > > Jacob, > > Can you please comment? Thanks. I don't really have

On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:34 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] >> On Behalf Of Owen Anderson >> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:37 AM >> To: Stellard, Thomas >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.illinois.edu >>

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Owen Anderson > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:37 AM > To: Stellard, Thomas > Cc: llvmdev at cs.illinois.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] No more TargetFlags on MO_Register > MachineOperands > > Tom, > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Tom

> -----Original Message----- > From: Owen Anderson [mailto:resistor at mac.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:41 AM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Stellard, Thomas; llvmdev at cs.illinois.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] No more TargetFlags on MO_Register > MachineOperands > > > On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:34 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at

Tom, On Aug 21, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > I've been working on replacing the MachineOperand flags in the R600 > backend with immediate operands, but I can't figure out how to modify > the instruction patterns to make this work. For example, I have the class: > > class R600_1OP <bits<32> inst, string opName,

All, The code generator operand class, MachineOperand, has an 8-bit TargetFlags field that the individual targets can use as they please. X86 and ARM use it to encode linker magic on symbol operands. It has been mentioned a couple of times on this list that it is not safe to use TargetFlags on register operands. This is because many target-independent passes are manipulating register operands

On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:52 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Owen Anderson [mailto:resistor at mac.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:41 AM >> To: Villmow, Micah >> Cc: Stellard, Thomas; llvmdev at cs.illinois.edu >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] No more TargetFlags on

Hi,   For a custom target, there is a pass to perform memory dependence analysis, where, i need to get memory pointer for "load instruction". I want to check the pointer alias behavior. I am getting this by considering the memoperands for the load instruction.   For "load instruction", Machine Instruction dumps as below:   vr12<def> = LD_Iri %vr2<kill>, 0;

Hi All, I'd like to add HLE support in LLVM/clang consistent to GCC's style [1]. HLE from Intel TSX [2] is legacy compatible instruction set extension to specify transactional region by adding XACQUIRE and XRELEASE prefixes. To support that, GCC chooses the approach by extending the memory order flag in __atomic_* builtins with target-specific memory model in high bits (bit 31-16 for

Hi Michael, Why do you want to add transactional memory support to LLVM ? Can't you implement transactional memory using a library call ? Judging by the number of patches it looks like a major change to LLVM, and I am not sure that I understand the motivation for including it in LLVM. Thanks, Nadav On Feb 19, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Michael Liao <michael.liao at intel.com> wrote:

Here is the patch 0004-Enable-HLE-code-generation.patch Yours - Michael On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 14:07 -0800, Michael Liao wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to add HLE support in LLVM/clang consistent to GCC's style [1]. > HLE from Intel TSX [2] is legacy compatible instruction set extension to > specify transactional region by adding XACQUIRE and XRELEASE prefixes. > To

Here is the patch 0002-Add-HLE-target-feature.patch Yours - Michael On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 14:07 -0800, Michael Liao wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to add HLE support in LLVM/clang consistent to GCC's style [1]. > HLE from Intel TSX [2] is legacy compatible instruction set extension to > specify transactional region by adding XACQUIRE and XRELEASE prefixes. > To support

Here is the patch 0003-Add-XACQ-XREL-prefix-and-encoding-asm-printer-suppor.patch Yours - Michael On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 14:07 -0800, Michael Liao wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to add HLE support in LLVM/clang consistent to GCC's style [1]. > HLE from Intel TSX [2] is legacy compatible instruction set extension to > specify transactional region by adding XACQUIRE and

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 04:30:13PM -0700, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > All, > > The code generator operand class, MachineOperand, has an 8-bit TargetFlags field that the individual targets can use as they please. X86 and ARM use it to encode linker magic on symbol operands. > > It has been mentioned a couple of times on this list that it is not safe to use TargetFlags on

Hi All, I'd like to add HLE support in LLVM/clang consistent to GCC's style [1]. HLE from Intel TSX [2] is legacy compatible instruction set extension to specify transactional region by adding XACQUIRE and XRELEASE prefixes. To support that, GCC chooses the approach by extending the memory order flag in __atomic_* builtins with target-specific memory model in high bits (bit 31-16 for

Hi all, I have a question about the types of MachineOperand. There are 12 different types of MachineOperand such as MO_Register, MO_Immediate and so on. Some of the names are self-explanatory such as MO_Register and MO_Immediate. Some of them are a little confusing such as MO_FrameIndex, MO_ConstantPoolIndex and so on. For example, what is the different between MO_ExternalSymbol and

On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I’m looking at utilizing the MachineOperand::TargetFlags and I’m wondering if there is a specific reason on limiting the size of the flags to 8 bits. Also are there any assumptions on what can be validly used here that I should keep in mind? Ideally I need 28 bits but I can code the major cases using all 8 bits, but I don’t want to clobber

Hi, On AMD GPUs we have source modifiers and output modifiers, which are bits you can set on instructions to perform some simple no cost operations on either the operands or the result of an instruction (floating point values only). The source modifiers are FABS and FNEG and are applied to the operands before an instruction is executed. The output modifiers are CLAMP (clamp result between 0.0f