similar to: [LLVMdev] RTLIB::UO_F32

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 8000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] RTLIB::UO_F32"

2012 Dec 13
0
[LLVMdev] RTLIB::UO_F32
what C code would produce the following when soft float is enabled? (RTLIB::UO_F32, "__unordsf2"); (RTLIB::UO_F64, "__unorddf2"); (RTLIB::O_F32, "__unordsf2"); (RTLIB::O_F64, "__unorddf2"); tia. reed
2013 Apr 22
1
[LLVMdev] minimum function ir
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Pete Couperus <pjcoup at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Reed, > > Basic blocks need to end with a terminator instruction. > There is an "unreachable" terminator instruction, whose documentation says: > "the presence of this instruction indicates some higher level knowledge > that the end of the block cannot be reached." >
2013 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] minimum function ir
Hello Reed, Basic blocks need to end with a terminator instruction. There is an "unreachable" terminator instruction, whose documentation says: "the presence of this instruction indicates some higher level knowledge that the end of the block cannot be reached." (see include/llvm/IR/Instructions.h). I've been able to suppress the return using this. I'm not completely
2009 Jun 22
1
[LLVMdev] Floating point comparison doubt
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
2020 Mar 02
4
RTLIB and Custom Library calls
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
2013 Apr 20
2
[LLVMdev] minimum function ir
On 04/20/2013 02:04 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > On 04/20/2013 01:30 PM, reed kotler wrote: >> Can I create a "naked" function that has only inline assembler and no >> return IR for example? >> >> If I create just a function will an empty basic block, it's core dumps. >> >> I'm debugging it now. > > Seems that you have to have at least a
2013 Mar 01
1
[LLVMdev] NVPTX CUDA_ERROR_NO_BINARY_FOR_GPU
The identifier INT_PTX_SREG_TID_X is the name of an instruction as the back-end sees it, and has very little to do with the name you should use in your IR. Your best bet is to look at the include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsNVVM.td file and see the definitions for each intrinsic. Then, the name mapping is just: int_foo_bar -> llvm.foo.bar() int_ prefix becomes llvm., and all underscores turn into
2017 Sep 01
2
[RFC] Adding ARC backend
Hi Pete, Thanks for your kind response! I migrated AVR target for lld https://reviews.llvm.org/D32991 it is very beginning, only support R_AVR_CALL reloc, and ARC is more complex than AVR, I will learn it from binutils, also ARC related doc, then try to implement it. 发自我的iPhone ------------------ Original ------------------ From: Pete Couperus <Peter.J.Couperus at synopsys.com> Date:
2012 Sep 06
0
[LLVMdev] Unaligned vector memory access for ARM/NEON.
Hi Pete, We ran into the same issue with generating vector loads/stores for vectors with less than word alignment. It seems we took a similar approach to solving the problem by modifying the logic in allowsUnalignedMemoryAccesses. As you and Jim mentioned, it looks like the vld1/vst1 instructions should support element aligned access for any armv7 implementation (I'm looking at Table A3-1
2012 Sep 07
0
[LLVMdev] Unaligned vector memory access for ARM/NEON.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Wilson [mailto:bob.wilson at apple.com] > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 10:57 AM > To: David Peixotto > Cc: 'Peter Couperus'; 'Jim Grosbach'; 'Jakob Olesen'; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Unaligned vector memory access for ARM/NEON. > > > On Sep 6, 2012, at 4:40 PM, David Peixotto
2012 Sep 06
0
[LLVMdev] Unaligned vector memory access for ARM/NEON.
-----Original Message----- From: Bob Wilson [mailto:bob.wilson at apple.com] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 3:39 PM To: David Peixotto Cc: 'Peter Couperus'; 'Jim Grosbach'; 'Jakob Olesen'; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Unaligned vector memory access for ARM/NEON. On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:48 PM, David Peixotto <dpeixott at codeaurora.org> wrote:
2012 Sep 07
2
[LLVMdev] Unaligned vector memory access for ARM/NEON.
On Sep 6, 2012, at 4:40 PM, David Peixotto <dpeixott at codeaurora.org> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Wilson [mailto:bob.wilson at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 3:39 PM > To: David Peixotto > Cc: 'Peter Couperus'; 'Jim Grosbach'; 'Jakob Olesen'; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Unaligned vector
2012 Sep 06
2
[LLVMdev] Unaligned vector memory access for ARM/NEON.
Hello, Thanks again. We did try overestimating the alignment, and saw the vldr you reference here. It looks like a recent change (r161962?) did enable vld1 generation for this case (great!) on darwin, but not linux. I'm not sure if the effect of lowering load <4 x i16>* align 2 to vld1.16 this was intentional in this change or not. If so, my question is what is the preferable way to
2012 Sep 06
2
[LLVMdev] Unaligned vector memory access for ARM/NEON.
On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:48 PM, David Peixotto <dpeixott at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Pete, > > We ran into the same issue with generating vector loads/stores for vectors > with less than word alignment. It seems we took a similar approach to > solving the problem by modifying the logic in allowsUnalignedMemoryAccesses. > > As you and Jim mentioned, it looks like the
2012 Sep 05
0
[LLVMdev] Unaligned vector memory access for ARM/NEON.
Hmmm. Well, it's entirely possible that it's LLVM that's confused about the alignment requirements here. :) I think I see, in general, where. I twiddled the IR to give it higher alignment (16 bytes) and get: extend: @ @extend @ BB#0: vldr d16, [r0] vmovl.s16 q8, d16 vstmia r1, {d16, d17} vldr d16, [r0, #8] add r0, r1, #16 vmovl.s16 q8, d16 vstmia
2012 Oct 11
2
[LLVMdev] vselect on ARM/NEON
Hello, We've run into a couple of cases where we'd like to use select on vector types, but vselect handling is absent from the ARM backend. Would there be any potential harm by marking VSELECT as Expand on ARM targets with NEON? Adding this seems to fix the following PR's: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13831 http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13961 Thanks! Pete
2012 Oct 11
0
[LLVMdev] vselect on ARM/NEON
Seems reasonable to me. Plain 'SELECT' is already marked expand for vector types. I bet that just didn't get updates when VSELECT was introduced. -Jim On Oct 11, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Peter Couperus <peter.couperus at st.com> wrote: > Hello, > > We've run into a couple of cases where we'd like to use select on vector types, but vselect handling is absent from
2012 Oct 11
1
[LLVMdev] vselect on ARM/NEON
If you mark VSELECT as 'expand' then it will be expanded to a sequence of AND/OR/XOR, which is pretty efficient (found in LegalizeVectorOps.cpp ExpandVSELECT). On Oct 11, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Seems reasonable to me. Plain 'SELECT' is already marked expand for vector types. I bet that just didn't get updates when VSELECT
2012 Sep 05
3
[LLVMdev] Unaligned vector memory access for ARM/NEON.
Hello Jim, Thank you for the response. I may be confused about the alignment rules here. I had been looking at the ARM RVCT Assembler Guide, which seems to indicate vld1.16 operates on 16-bit aligned data, unless I am misinterpreting their table (Table 5-11 in ARM DUI 0204H, pg 5-70,5-71). Prior to the table, It does mention the accesses need to be "element" aligned, where I took
2013 May 30
1
[LLVMdev] Expected behavior of calling bitcasted functions?
On 05/30/2013 06:12 AM, Pete Couperus wrote: > Hello, > > This is an interesting example. Whenever I see strange things like > this, I use opt's -lint. > In this case, opt -lint reports: > Undefined behavior: Call return type mismatches callee return type > %call = call float @alias_f32(float %tmp2) #1 > > You'll get a similar report when the parameter types