similar to: [LLVMdev] About a problem in SROA

Hi Daniel, I defined checkEarlyTargetMatchPredicate() to explicitly check for the tied operands, and it worked. I could define an alias like: InstAlias<"oldOP $rd, $rd, $rs1", (NEWOP $rd, $rs1)> However, I had to additionally change AsmMatcherEmitter 'Hack' variable setting to allow the repeated operand $rd in the AsmString. Do you or anyone else know the history

Hello, I'm trying to use clang to compile a file on Mac OS (x86_64) and get the following error. <inline asm>:4:2: error: instruction requires a CPU feature not currently enabled jmp *%edx ^ fatal error: error in backend: Error parsing inline asm This file does compile on an Ubuntu 32bit machine I checked on google and didn't find anything helpful about it. Does

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

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!");

Does anyone know how to instrument *double* to <2 x doulbe>**, e.g., 2.2 --> <2.2, 2.2>? For example, I want to change the following IR code %arrayidx1 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x double]* @main.B, i32 0, i32 %i.021 %1 = load double* %arrayidx1, align 4, !tbaa !0 to: %arrayidx1 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x double]* @main.B, i32 0, i32 %i.021 %1 = bitcast double* %arrayidx1

Hi Pawel, can you please pull this dragonegg patch into 3.2. I am the code owner for dragonegg. Thanks a lot, Duncan. On 28/11/12 13:44, Duncan Sands wrote: > Author: baldrick > Date: Wed Nov 28 06:44:50 2012 > New Revision: 168787 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=168787&view=rev > Log: > Add support for GCC's vector copysign builtins, fixing

Hi, for some temporary debugging I wanted to know what sort of Value I was seeing, and I ran across this comment in Value.h - it's probably a minor point, but unless I'm missing something I think either the last line of the comment is wrong or the code is. It appears in rev 1.58, as part of fixing bug 122. 00134 /// getValueType - Return an ID for the concrete type of this object.

Nick Lewycky wrote: > > > > It's maintained by LLVM for you, by Value::setName and other methods. > > Nick > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > I am getting the following error when trying to

Thanks Nick, that's something what I am trying to implement as the following. But it seems I still only get the constant value not the instruction. Could you please go over the following instruction and see what wrong with it? Thanks for your time again. Value *vecVal = NULL; IRBuilder<> builder(&*pInst); Type *vecTy = VectorType::get(Type::getDoubleTy(ctxt), 2); Value

> That is good to hear / expected, since we went though great lengths to ensure that SROA preserves variable debug info. > > Have you looked at the location-less phi instructions? > Does empty mean line 0 or do you mean they have no debug location whatsoever? Most of them have line 0, only 12 are locationless. > Are they empty for good reasons or does it look more like an

> On May 30, 2018, at 8:37 AM, Anast Gramm <anastasis.gramm2 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Introduction > ============ > > `SROA' is an early stage pass running at the very beginning of the > pipeline in `-O{1,2,3}'. Greg Bedwell's report from his DExTer tool > shows SROA on function as one of the major culprits of Debug Info > loss. > > With

FWIW, I've raised the LICM issue here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37682 On 31 May 2018 at 13:28, Anast Gramm <anastasis.gramm2 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, > These are very helpful. > > As I understand it, SROA and LICM render some variables > "useless" by optimizing the code to not use them. Hence we can't debug > them. > >

I got it. Thanks, Nick. So, it is back to the previous problem. If I have the following instruction: %3 = fadd double %1, double %2 I want to change it into %6 = fadd <2 x double> %4, double %5 where %4 = <double %1, double %1>, %5 = <double %2, double %2>, how can I do this? Thanks, Best On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: >

It seems that the problem was because I used builder.CreateFAdd to create a <2 x double> vectortype FADD instruction. It works if I use it to create the scalar version FADD. I want to have an instruction like: *%2 = fadd <2 x double> undef, <2 x double> undef. *The following is the way I used to create the vectorized FADD instruction: //pInst is a double type instruction

> > is in the business of deciding, but it does score it as a difference > because it now, at no point, sees the expression "first" evaluate to a > value of 5, or "total" to a value of 8 which it did previously. From the > source-level debugging experience, the variables now just get updated > between iterations. > Obviously should've been 7 for that

Hi Shuxin, > Following is excerpted from dynamic-vector-gep.ll. > The resulting "extractelement" seems to always return 0.0f regardless the value > idx1 and idx2 is holding. > Am I missing something here or there is something fishy take place? maybe this is the same as PR15674. Ciao, Duncan.

Hi, Duncan: Thank you for sharing this info. I will check and go back to you next Monday. In case PR15674 is caused by the same bug, I will put a comment over there and close it. Thank you again! Shuxin On 4/6/13 2:55 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Shuxin, > >> Following is excerpted from dynamic-vector-gep.ll. >> The resulting "extractelement" seems to

Hi, I have a customer testcase where SROA splits a volatile memcpy and we end up generating bad code[1]. While this looks like a bug, simply preventing SROA from splitting volatile memory intrinsics causes basictest.ll for SROA to fail. Not only that, but it also seems like handling of volatile memory transfers was done with some intent. What are the design decisions in SROA regarding

Hi all, I have a question regarding populating ValueSymbolTable of a Function. Is it that ValueSymbolTable is populated automatically whenever an alloca instruction is created using IRBuilder or do we need to explicitly populate?? If we need to populate explicitly, the insert method in ValueSymbolTable is private, so how can we do it? Currently, I am trying to access the symbol table as below:

subramanyam wrote: > > Hi all, > I have a question regarding populating ValueSymbolTable of a Function. > Is it that ValueSymbolTable is populated automatically whenever an alloca > instruction is created using IRBuilder or do we need to explicitly > populate?? It's maintained by LLVM for you, by Value::setName and other methods. Nick