similar to: [LLVMdev] Alternate instruction encoding for subtargets - SOLVED

Hello, I have a compiler in LLVM 2.9 for the KCPM3 processor. I'd like to create a subtarget for the new cpu version called KCPSM6. Besides a couple of new instructions which are not important at the moment, the KCPSM6 cpu has different instruction opcodes. Semantically the instructions are the same, hence I'd like to keep all the lowering and pattern matching stuff unmodified For

Dear R-helpers, I'm working on mass spectra in randomForest/R, and following the recommendations for the case of noisy variables, I don't want to use the default mtry (sqrt of nvariables), but I'm not sure up to which proportion mtry/nvariables it makes sense to increase mtry without "overtuning" RF. Let me tell my example: I have 106 spectra belonging to 4 classes, the

Memory mapped and port I/O is currently broken under VMX when the partition is running in VM8086 mode. The reason is that the instruction decoding support uses 32-bit opcode/address decodes rather 16-bit decodes. This patch fixes that. In addition, the patch adds support for the "stos" instruction decoding because this is a frequently used way to clear MMIO areas such as the screen. As

Most ports pass a format code down to various instructions formats. This ends up getting packed into TSFlags via FormBits. The Mips compiler does not really use this at all except for one place in the old style jit but I think that that code can be eliminated and replaced with something simpler. Is this just an old remnant or are other people using this too? I'm adding a new port to Mips

Hello, I'm trying to write assembler code writer, and of course, have new questions. I'd like the structure my implementation like this: if (/*binary instruction*/) { // print destination O << " = "; // print first operand O << opcode; // print second operand. } if (/* unary instruction */ ) { .... } if (/*control instruction*/) { ....

Also some missing _src()s and cosmetic changes. --- src/gallium/programs/galliumut/Makefile | 5 + .../programs/galliumut/gen_uureg_opcodes.sh | 29 +++ src/gallium/programs/galliumut/uureg.h | 196 ++++---------------- 3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) create mode 100644 src/gallium/programs/galliumut/gen_uureg_opcodes.sh diff --git

Hal, that’s a good point. There are more manually-maintained tables in the X86 backend that should probably be tablegened: the memory-folding tables and ReplaceableInstrs, to name a couple. If you have ideas on how to get these auto-generated, please let us know. From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Hal Finkel via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016

On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Christopher Lamb wrote: > >> I noticed that the TableGen code emitter generator assumes that >> the instruction fields are declared in the instruction format in >> the same order that operands are defined. This seems like a bad >> dependence to me, and that TableGen should match

Hello, Thanks to recent changes in the SVN, I was able to successfully build LLVM under Windows in the following environments: 1. Cygwin; 2. MinGW/MSYS; 3. "gcc -mno-cygwin" (a.k.a MinGW on Cygwin). For 3., I've had to make a few manual changes to the build system. Care is needed because non-Cygwin external commands require Windows paths and Cygwin's make does not like path

The Wine development release 1.3.10 is now available. What's new in this release (see below for details): - Support for notification balloons in system tray. - Obsolete AudioIO sound driver removed. - More work on ActiveX support. - Various MSI fixes. - Preloader now used for 64-bit too. - Translation updates. - Various bug fixes. The source is available from the following

Aaron, I mailed in the same mail twice (by mistake), you answered both copies. Differently! In any case, I've re-read what exists. I'm dumping what I understand here, so that we can discuss in detail. I'm using MachO as the example object format, as the ELF code is totally broken and outdated. Lets use the following as the basis for our discussion? There are 3 classes which

> Aaron, I mailed in the same mail twice (by mistake), you answered both > copies. Differently! > > In any case, I've re-read what exists. I'm dumping what I understand > here, so that we can discuss in detail. I'm using MachO as the example > object format, as the ELF code is totally broken and outdated. Lets > use the following as the basis for our discussion?

I'm implementing this capability to allow switching between mips32 and mips16 code generation on a per function basis (should be useful for arm to thumb switching too). The problem is that while various things are done on a per function basis, there are two passes registered on a per module basis (target lowering and instruction selection). With the new attribute scheme, we can wake up

hi, i am trying to find out all the Triple (CPU information) of all the ARM subtargets supported by LLVM 3.3. to do this, i traced all the calls to class ARMSubtarget(), because this class initialized the Triple. i supposed that all the ARM machines need to initialize their own Triple info with ARMSubtarget(). however, to my frustrated, this doesnt seem true, and i still cannot find them

I've been trying to understand the current state of subtargets and subtarget features in LLVM. It seems like the presence of "target-cpu" and "target-features" attributes on IR functions are currently intended to take precedence over the module-level (TargetMachine) versions. See X86TargetMachine::getSubtargetImpl for an example of this. However, this feels like it is