similar to: [LLVMdev] FW: Bug in SelectionDAG visitTargetIntrinsic

void SelectionDAGBuilder::visitTargetIntrinsic(const CallInst &I, - unsigned Intrinsic) { - bool HasChain = !I.doesNotAccessMemory(); - bool OnlyLoad = HasChain && I.onlyReadsMemory(); + unsigned Intrinsic) { + // Info is set by getTgtMemInstrinsic + TargetLowering::IntrinsicInfo Info; + bool

Tks Tom, That is my confusing part. How can I make it to "access memory” so it will HasChain? Is there any flag set like in typeProfile, Node, instructions? myLoad, mayStore, SDNPHasChain? -kevin On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:15:45PM -0400, kewuzhang wrote: >> sure! >> >> class

Yeah. I agree that "Chain operand is needed if the intrinsic is reading / writing memory.”, Just don’t know where and how to set it up. like intrinsic “int_x86_xtest: “ def int_x86_xtest : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_xtest">, Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [], []>; “ "def X86xtest: SDNode<"X86ISD::XTEST", SDTypeProfile<1, 0,

sure! class TEST_INTINSIC_FM< string asmstr> : Intrinsic <llvm_i32_ty], [llvm_i32_ty, llvm_ptr_ty], [IntrReadWriteArgMem], !strconcat(“llvm.test”, asmstr),”.float”) >; tks On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 03:19:47PM -0400, kewuzhang wrote: >> en! >> >> my test is : %r1 =

I am trying to compile a little intrinsic function for my machine. Here is a dump from clang-cc with --emit-llvm option: ===================== ; ModuleID = 'foo.c' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:32:32" target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" @main.i = internal global i32

On Jan 6, 2010, at 1:12 PM, fima rabin wrote: > I am trying to compile a little intrinsic function for my machine. Here is a dump from clang-cc with --emit-llvm option: > ===================== > > ; ModuleID = 'foo.c' > target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:32:32" >

Hello everybody, I use a target specific Intrinsic that returns an illegal type. The idea is that this returned value shall be eliminated when the Intrinsic node is lowered to a target node. I realize that this is a rather late stage, since (at least) SelectionDAGLowering::visitTargetIntrinsic() requires legal types, and type legalization in general is also done before ISelLowering. The

Hi Christian, > I use a target specific Intrinsic that returns an illegal type. > The idea is that this returned value shall be eliminated when the > Intrinsic node is lowered to a target node. > I realize that this is a rather late stage, since (at least) > SelectionDAGLowering::visitTargetIntrinsic() requires legal types, > and type legalization in general is also done before

Hi Team, I'm working on a new pure functional language and I'm trying to add GC support for that. Because all vars are immutable, the IR that my frontend generates are all register based, i.e. no alloca, and no readmem, writemem unless accessing/constructing structs. If I use the traditional GC with gcroot intrinsic, it will need to emit more code for liveness tracking, storing the IR

On 2015/8/4 3:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [SNIP] >> I'll post 2 LLVM patches by replying this mail. Please have a look and >> help me >> send them to LLVM if you think my code is correct. > > [SNIP] > patch 2: > do we really need to hack clang? > Can you just define a function that aliases to intrinsic, > like we do for ld_abs/ld_ind ? > void

Hi, I was looking at the x86 vector intrinsics for converting half precision floating point numbers and I'm a bit confused as to why certain types were chosen. I've gone ahead and used their current definition with success but I'd like to understand why the types used with these intrinsics are done this way. For reference see ``include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td``. Here are the

My understanding of intrinsics in LLVM is that an optimization pass cannot touch an intrinsic unless it (1) is specifically programmed to have knowledge of the intrinsic, or (2) uses only declared properties of the intrinsic, like IntrNoMem. So, for example, a pass may move an unknown intrinsic around memory ops if its defined IntrNoMem, but it cannot hoist constants for arbitrary intrinsics. Is

On 2015/8/12 12:57, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:34:43AM +0800, Wangnan (F) via llvm-dev wrote: >> Think about a program like this: >> >> struct strA { int a; } >> struct strB { int b; } >> int func() { >> struct strA a; >> struct strB b; >> >> a.a = 1; >> b.b = 2; >>

Thanks for reviving this. I completely forgot the details but I resolved this problem. Looking though the code, seems I forked RewriteStatepointsForGC pass, and change it to adding 'gc-livevars' bundle to the call/invoke inst after finding the livevars, instead of changing it to StatepointCall intrinsic. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 11:48 AM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>

Hi all, There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: ... 1. %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre, %entry.for.end_crit_edge ], [ %sum.safe_r42, %for.body ] 2. %call9 = call i32 @gettimeofday(%struct.timeval* %end,

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates >> stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies >> on stores in an end BB though.

Hello, I have a problem with pattern matching on intrinsics. I have following code in IntrinsicsX86.td: ``` let TargetPrefix = "x86" in { // All intrinsics start with "llvm.x86.". def int_x86_mpx_bndmk: Intrinsic<[llvm_x86bnd_ty], [llvm_ptr_ty, llvm_i64_ty], []>; } ``` And following instruction that is generated when @llvm.x86.mpx.bndmk is used in code:

I've run into an issue specifying intrinsics for AVX. Right now one can use GCCBuiltin to get automatic CBE (and other) support for emitting intrinsics as gcc builtins. It looks like this: def int_x86_sse3_hadd_pd : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_ia32_haddpd">, Intrinsic<[llvm_v2f64_ty], [llvm_v2f64_ty, llvm_v2f64_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; AVX

Hi Guys, I am trying to promote half to float for my intrinsic math operations, following class and pattern are defined. " class S_HF__HF< string asmstr> : Intrinsic <[llvm_float_ty ], [llvm_float_ty ], [IntrNoMem], !strconcat(asmstr, "_f16")>; def :Pat<( f16 (int_my_math_f16 f16:$src)), (F2Hsr (FEXTsr f16:$src) )>; “ where FEXTsr is

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates > stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies > on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: >   ... > 1.  %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre,