similar to: [LLVMdev] Trouble with instructions for lowering load/store.

I have a question: In the pattern below from X86 def INC8r : I<0xFE, MRM0r, (outs GR8 :$dst), (ins GR8 :$src), "inc{b}\tdst", [(set GR8:$dst, (add GR8:$src, 1))]>; Since we are emitting only "inc $dst", What makes sure that the $src and $dst are same register? - Sanjiv

Hi In my MC6809 backend, in llvm/lib/Target/MC6809/InstPrinter/MC6809InstPrinter.cpp, I have the routine void MC6809InstPrinter::printPCRelImmOperand(const MCInst *MI, unsigned OpNo, raw_ostream &O) { const MCOperand &Op = MI->getOperand(OpNo); ZZ if (Op.isImm()) { int64_t Imm = Op.getImm() + 2; <<<======================== O << "$"; if (Imm

sanjiv gupta wrote: > I have a question: > In the pattern below from X86 > > def INC8r : I<0xFE, MRM0r, (outs GR8 :$dst), (ins GR8 :$src), > "inc{b}\tdst", > [(set GR8:$dst, (add GR8:$src, 1))]>; > > Since we are emitting only "inc $dst", > What makes sure that the $src and $dst are same register? > > - Sanjiv It's enclosed

I see in the x86 InstInfo.td the following for the INC instructions: def INC8r : I<0xFE, MRM0r, (ops GR8 :$dst, GR8 :$src), "inc{b} $dst", [(set GR8:$dst, (add GR8:$src, 1))]>; Which seem to have the same restriction that I'm trying to implement, but I don't understand how this ensures that $src and $dst are the same register. -- Christopher Lamb

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote: > I see in the x86 InstInfo.td the following for the INC instructions: > > def INC8r : I<0xFE, MRM0r, (ops GR8 :$dst, GR8 :$src), "inc{b} $dst", > [(set GR8:$dst, (add GR8:$src, 1))]>; > > Which seem to have the same restriction that I'm trying to implement, > but I don't understand how this

On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 13:33 +0100, Richard Osborne wrote: > sanjiv gupta wrote: > > I have a question: > > In the pattern below from X86 > > > > def INC8r : I<0xFE, MRM0r, (outs GR8 :$dst), (ins GR8 :$src), > > "inc{b}\tdst", > > [(set GR8:$dst, (add GR8:$src, 1))]>; > > > > Since we are emitting only "inc $dst",

Thanks for spelling it out, now I understand. On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Galanov, Sergey wrote: > Well, the point is CMOV_GR* are marked clobbering EFLAGS conservatively just in case they turn out to be lowered into a sequence containing XOR %reg,%reg which indeed clobbers EFLAGS. This means there might not be any instruction which actually uses this EFLAGS value. This actually looks like a

Hi Peter, I think the problem is that you did not explicitly define stack alignment in Z80TargetMachine.cpp DataLayout("e-p:16:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:8:8-i32:8:8-n8") Try to add S16 to the string if your stack is 2-byte aligned. Refer to http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#datalayout . If it does not work, try to specify the layout in the input module using target layout directive. David On

Hello. I am playing with LLVM and trying to make Z80 (Zilog Z80) backend. The source code is attached. I have succesfully made some simple test. But now I have problem with ADD instruction. The source C code is: typedef struct { unsigned char id1; unsigned char id2; unsigned char id3; } testS; void simple() { testS test; test.id1 = 0x40; test.id2 = 0x80; test.id3 = 0xc0; } It

Well, the point is CMOV_GR* are marked clobbering EFLAGS conservatively just in case they turn out to be lowered into a sequence containing XOR %reg,%reg which indeed clobbers EFLAGS. This means there might not be any instruction which actually uses this EFLAGS value. For an example we can look no further than the actual test which has been disabled after the fix

Hello. I have played with DataLayout and found a solution with is uknown to me. I added S16 and also s0:16:16, but it had not worked. Then I found that in Z80FrameLowering.h I am calling TargetFrameLowering with stack aligment set to 8. So I changed it to 2 bytes. But this also didn't help. Then I changed llc to show TargetDataLayout and found that a option is set to a0:0:64. So I changed

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for your answer! Chris Lattner wrote: >> 1. Why does X86 instruction set description provide different >> descriptions for the same instructions, which differ only in the size >> of operands? >> E.g. >> >> def MOV8rm : I<0x8A, MRMSrcMem, (ops GR8 :$dst, i8mem :$src), >> "mov{b} {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}",

Hi, I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, to save some time. But when I look into the X86InstrInfo.td, I have a very strong feeling that it is one of the most complex instruction set descriptions compared to other targets. I can imagine that this is due to the complexity of X86's

Hi, This patch fixes outs/ins of MOV16mr instruction of X86. Thanks. diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td b/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td index e9a0431..f5b2064 100644 --- a/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td +++ b/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td @@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@ let SchedRW = [WriteStore] in { def MOV8mr : I<0x88, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins i8mem :$dst, GR8 :$src),

>I am assuming a 16-bit value will be stored in a pair of 8-bit > registers? One related question is how to make sure that the correct register pair is allocated to the16-bit quantity when using two 8-bit operations. In other words, how we can make sure that the 16-bit pointer is stored into [AH, AL] and not in [AH, BL] ? i.e. GR8 = [ AH, BH, AL, BL]; GR16 = [AX, BX] ; // AX, BX

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. > Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, > to save some time. Ok. Note that the X86 backend is one of the most complex though, because it supports several subtargets and ABIs, which makes it more complex than some other targets. >

Hi I'm returning to my MC6809 back-end from a health-related hiatus. The assembler is tantalisingly close, but I've got some parsing and matching problems. The register set; these overlap in annoying ways, for instance, two instructions TFR and EXG each have a single opcode, and the post-byte specifies which registers are to be involved, but the registers can be 8- or 16-bit, and 2 of

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386. GNU as supports them fine. Unfortunately, LLVM does not > support them, and barfs with: > > error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix > > Fix this problem by disambiguating it

Hi All, I've developed a pass to render machine functions as HTML pages with some accompanying information about liveness and register pressure. Current features: Renders machine functions, optionally displaying estimated register pressure for selected register classes, and liveness for selected intervals. The following command line options can be used to enable and customise the

hi all started using migration , gr8 stuff but how can i maintain old data , or import it alongwith schema with same easiness, as in migration we only import schema ? thanks rohit --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: