similar to: [LLVMdev] help with X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection

Hi Peng, Can you please open a bugzilla and attache the LL file ? Can you please reproduce it on ToT ? Thanks, Nadav On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Peng Cheng <gm4cheng at gmail.com> wrote: > I have an llvm ir, which generates the following machine code using llc (llvm 3.0 on win32) after # *** IR Dump After X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection ***: > > The first three lines

...this is moving from llvm-commits to llvm-dev. On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > 1) Can a BB presented to the MI scheduler be _not_ terminated (end on a non > terminator MI) under any circumstances? Below you are speaking about "Empty > blocks, or blocks with only a single instruction that not a terminator..." - > What

I want to write a pattern that looks something like this: def : Pat<(unalignedstore (v2f64 VR128:$src), addr:$dst), (MOVSDmr ADD64ri8(addr:$dst, imm:8), ( SHUFPDrri (VR128:$src, (MOVSDmr addr:$dst, FR64:$src))), imm:3) So I want to convert an unaligned vector store to a scalar store, a shuffle and a scalar store. There are several question I have: - Is the imm:3 syntax

On Monday 17 November 2008 14:28, David Greene wrote: > I want to write a pattern that looks something like this: > > def : Pat<(unalignedstore (v2f64 VR128:$src), addr:$dst), > (MOVSDmr ADD64ri8(addr:$dst, imm:8), ( SHUFPDrri (VR128:$src, > (MOVSDmr addr:$dst, FR64:$src))), imm:3) > > So I want to convert an unaligned vector store to a scalar store, a

I sent a long message yesterday describing a problem I thought had to do with the JIT stubs. After further investigating, the problem seems to be in the code generation. The following basic block seems to have an error in it's code generation: __exp.exit: ; preds = %codeRepl258, %__exp_bb_bb.exit phi double [ 1.000000e+00, %codeRepl258 ], [ %.reload.reload.i,

On Nov 17, 2008, at 3:50 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Monday 17 November 2008 14:28, David Greene wrote: >> I want to write a pattern that looks something like this: >> >> def : Pat<(unalignedstore (v2f64 VR128:$src), addr:$dst), >> (MOVSDmr ADD64ri8(addr:$dst, imm:8), ( SHUFPDrri >> (VR128:$src, >> (MOVSDmr addr:$dst, FR64:$src))),

On 02/27/2018 10:21 AM, Alex Wang via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello all! > > I was looking through the results of disassembling a heavily-used > short function > in the program I'm working on, and ended up wondering why LLVM was > generating > that assembly and what changes would be necessary to improve the code. > I asked > on #llvm, but it seems that the people with

Hello all! I was looking through the results of disassembling a heavily-used short function in the program I'm working on, and ended up wondering why LLVM was generating that assembly and what changes would be necessary to improve the code. I asked on #llvm, but it seems that the people with the necessary expertise weren't around. Here is a condensed version of the code:

Is LiveVariables updated correctly when TII->RemoveBranch and TII->InsertBranch are called in the following piece of code? - MachineBasicBlock::updateTerminator() line 307 of MachineBasicBlock.cpp: if (FBB) { // The block has a non-fallthrough conditional branch. If one of its // successors is its layout successor, rewrite it to a fallthrough // conditional branch.