similar to: [LLVMdev] RTLIB::UO_F32

Hi Reed, Sorry about the off-list reply. I need to reset my list preferences. If I build: cmp.c: int cmp_single(float a) { return (a != a) ? 1 : 0; } int cmp_double(double a) { return (a != a) ? 1 : 0; } with clang -target mips-unknown -S cmp.c I get calls to __unordsf2 and __unorddf2. Pete

Hi, In unordered floating point comparison before making a call for comparison proper one node called UO_F32 is generated. In targets this node is replaced with a call to __unordsf2. My doubts here 1) What are these UO_F32 and O_F32 nodes for? 2) What is this function (__unordsf2) supposed to do? Regards Sachin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? >> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would >> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction

Hello LLVM-Dev, Most of the processing for i64 and f64 types for our backend are emulation library calls. Some of the library calls are not defined in the RuntimeLibcalls.def Libcall enum so we have to define custom library calls. How is the ideal way of implementing the custom library calls? Providing us with a target backend having a similar functionality would also help us significantly. Say

I'm looking at the Legalize code and in 2.5 the above function is: void DAGTypeLegalizer::ExpandFloatRes_FADD(SDNode *N, SDValue &Lo, SDValue &Hi) { SDValue Call = LibCallify(GetFPLibCall(N->getValueType(0), RTLIB::ADD_F32, RTLIB::ADD_F64,

Ignore the suggested fix in my earlier post. How about this? diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp b/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp index 20c81c3..b8ebf42 100644 --- a/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp +++ b/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp @@ -1632,10 +1632,11 @@ X86TargetLowering::X86TargetLowering(const X86TargetMachine &TM, if (!Subtarget.is64Bit()) { // These

LLVM appears to support Library functions for ISD::SRA ,ISD::SHL, and ISD::SRL, as they are properly defined in RuntimeLibCalls.def. The library functions defined in RuntimeLibCalls.def (among others) are these: HANDLE_LIBCALL(SRA_I16, "__ashrhi3") HANDLE_LIBCALL(SRA_I32, "__ashrsi3") HANDLE_LIBCALL(SRA_I64, "__ashrdi3") However, setting

If I do T.getArch() == xxx TLI.setUnavailable(LibFunc::copysign) then this works at generating a call instead of not being able to select the ISD::FCOPYSIGN, but I don't know why I don't need to do this for other LibFunc functions (such as floor, etc... these generate call just fine)? Thanks, Ryan On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:

Tim, Are you referring to setLibcallName? That is target specific yes but there isn't RTLIB for most of the libm functions, for example, for acos this doesn't apply. Ideally what I would like is to create a libc with functions like acos called something like __xxx_acos that can still be recognized to be optimized. RTLIB is pretty limited but it works fine, I can just use

Hi Daniel, I'm trying to use the feature you added to Clang a long time ago (2011), the --rtlib=compiler-rt and it doesn't seem to do anything. Now that I have compiler-rt building on ARM and the archive libraries under /lib, I'd like to replace -lgcc with -lclang_rt, but this command line: $ clang --rtlib=compiler-rt -Wl,-lclang_rt foo.c Gives me the warning/errors: clang-3.5:

Hello, my target has libcall support for long long shifts. I already have the following lines in my Lowering constructor: setLibcallName(RTLIB::SHL_I64, "__llshl"); setLibcallName(RTLIB::SRL_I64, "__llshru"); setLibcallName(RTLIB::SRA_I64, "__llshr"); and setOperationAction(ISD::SHL, MVT::i64, Expand); setOperationAction(ISD::SRA, MVT::i64,

Note: Question is written after describing what I have coded. Hello LLVMDevs, I am trying to impliment floating point comparsion for an architecture which supports following type of floating point comparision if FPU is available: fcmp.un --> true if one of the operand is NaN fcmp.lt --> ordered less than, if any input NaN then return false fcmp.eq --> ordered equal, if any input NaN

Adding to Ashutosh's comments, We are also interested in making LLVM generate vector math library calls that are available with glibc (version > 2.22). reference: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/libmvec Using the example case given in the reference, we found there are 2 vector versions for "sin" (4 X double) with same VF namely _ZGVcN4v_sin (avx) version and _ZGVdN4v_sin

It may not be a full solution for the problems you're trying to solve, but I don't know why adding to include/llvm/CodeGen/RuntimeLibcalls.def is a problem in itself. Certainly, it's a mess that could be organized, especially so we're not repeating everything for each data type as we do right now. So yes, I think that would allow us to remove the VecLib mappings because we are

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Tim, > > Currently, I have to do multiple things: > > 1) create some setLibcallNames in XXXISelLowering.cpp to generate correct > naming for RTLIBS. > 2) lower ISD down to an RTLIB for some calls (and then do solution 1 on > those to get correct names) These solve a related but different -

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 02/25/2017 03:06 AM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev wrote: > > Note: Question is written after describing what I have coded. > > Hello LLVMDevs, > > I am trying to impliment floating point comparsion for an architecture > which > supports following type of floating point comparision if FPU

On 22 October 2014 19:24, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > I do compiler_rt + libc++abi + libc++ + clang (with a custom ToolChain) testing > of libc++ on bare-metal ARM.... so it is possible. Perhaps you mean to say that > it's not possible to test libunwind on arm-linux when using compiler_rt? Yeah, it's hard and clumsy, not impossible. Basically,

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Johannes Birgmeier <e0902998 at student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Hello, > > my target has libcall support for long long shifts. I already have the > following lines in my Lowering constructor: > >   setLibcallName(RTLIB::SHL_I64, "__llshl"); >   setLibcallName(RTLIB::SRL_I64, "__llshru"); >  

Hi Eli, Thanks for pointing to the CTLZ_ZERO_UNDEF “LibCall” implementation. I have not it in the version that I am currently using, so it’s nice to know that it’s implemented now. Incidentally, the CTLZ… implementation is IDENTICAL to what I am proposing for the Shifts. This is not just adding support for “out-of-tree-targets”, but giving consistency to the fact that we have perfectly defined

Hi Andy, It looks like you're using LLVM's old JIT, rather than MCJIT? The old JIT has been removed from the mainline, and is no longer supported. I'd recommend building your own copy of LLVM from the development branch (as Reed suggested) where MCJIT is used by default - this may fix your issue. If you want to stick with the precompiled binaries, then you should change: #include