similar to: [LLVMdev] setCC and brcond

Hi all, I started to write an LLVM backend for custom CPU. I created XXXInstrInfo but there are some problems. I searched for it but I couldn't find anything. Can anyone help me? include "XXXInstrFormats.td" def simm16 : Operand<i32> { let DecoderMethod = "DecodeSimm16"; } def mem : Operand<i32> { let PrintMethod = "printMemOperand"; let

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote: > I have a back end which has both scalar and vector registers that > alias each other. I'm having a problem generating the ISel from > tablegen that appears only when a vector register class is declared > to contain integer vectors. At that moment tablegen doesn't seem to > be able to infer integer types in patterns that it was

On Apr 23, 2007, at 5:06 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote: >> I have a back end which has both scalar and vector registers that >> alias each other. I'm having a problem generating the ISel from >> tablegen that appears only when a vector register class is declared >> to contain integer vectors. At that moment tablegen

I have a back end which has both scalar and vector registers that alias each other. I'm having a problem generating the ISel from tablegen that appears only when a vector register class is declared to contain integer vectors. At that moment tablegen doesn't seem to be able to infer integer types in patterns that it was able to before, but I'm not clear on why that's the

Digging deeper... 1. Is there a good reason that v2f32 types are excluded from the isFloatingPoint filter? Looks like a bug to me. v2f32 = 22, // 2 x f32 v4f32 = 23, // 4 x f32 <== start ?? v2f64 = 24, // 2 x f64 <== end static inline bool isFloatingPoint(ValueType VT) { return (VT >= f32 && VT <= f128) || (VT

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:55:04 +0200, Pertti Kellomäki <pertti.kellomaki at tut.fi> wrote: > Hi Adam, > > John is right, the TCE stuff would be useful for you. Our > compiler targets a processor template that the designer can > populate pretty freely. The compiler then reads the architecture > description and creates an LLVM backend on the fly. > > Please don't

On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Christopher Lamb wrote: > >> I noticed that the TableGen code emitter generator assumes that >> the instruction fields are declared in the instruction format in >> the same order that operands are defined. This seems like a bad >> dependence to me, and that TableGen should match

Hi, I'd like to understand how register allocation works in the case where an instruction is folded into another one. Where in the code would be a good place to start looking at? After ISEL, one of the instructions has another instruction folded into it, which looks like this t1: i32,i1,i1,i1,i1 = ADDRR TargetFrameIndex:i32<0>, MOVRI:i32,i1,i1 But during the 'Assembly

Hello, Im (trying) to write a backend for a simple 32bit processor architecture, with a single instruction format having no condition code registers. www.docm.mmu.ac.uk/STAFF/A.Nisbet/Sabre.pdf is the short 15 page document describing the architecture of Sabre. It is a Celoxica developed research/teaching processor, pages 5-8 contain relevant information for targetting it from a new compiler

Hi all, I am trying to write a back-end for LLVM where any instruction may take any type of data. I am looking for the output to be of the format: inst.type reg1,reg2 etc. Where inst is the instruction, e.g. mov and type is data-type e.g. f32 etc. I tried creating a back-end with a register class which could take i32 and f32: def GPRegs : RegisterClass <"Test",

Hi everyone, I am trying to write a pass, that finds some instructions and replaces them with my intrinsics, but I am having problem understanding, how this should be done. Let's say I have this instruction: %tmp14 = load i32* getelementptr ([32 x i32]* @gpregs, i32 0, i64 28) and i need to read the load's operands and replace it by let's say: %tmp14 = call i32

Hi Adam, John is right, the TCE stuff would be useful for you. Our compiler targets a processor template that the designer can populate pretty freely. The compiler then reads the architecture description and creates an LLVM backend on the fly. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with us if you have questions. -- Pertti

Hi Adam, > One problem, I was trying to solve was, that I need to declare variables of let's say 5-bit width like 'i5 var', > the maximal bit-width may be limited to 64 bits. I need such variables to represent instruction's operands, > example is at the end this message. any standard compliant C compiler supports i5, believe it or not. Try this: #include

Hello gyus, I am working on a project, where we are trying to create a development environment for new ASIP processor design. Part of this project is a compiler generator, where we would like to generate C compiler from some instruction description. To keep it short, let's say, that in each instruction's semantics is described by some C code. What I would like to do is to compile this

Need some guidance about the right way to model this -- how would you model a backend with a handful of read-only physical registers that are passed as arguments to a function? I was emitting copyFromReg nodes in the LowerFormalArgument() routine, but then the register allocator and coalescer are resisting coalescing the COPY MI's for various reasons - for example, the read-only register class

Is it possible to get a virtual register and then use that to create a real register? I've seen it done in unittests/CodeGen/MachineInstrTest.cpp like this: unsigned VirtualDef1 = -42; VD1VU->addOperand(*MF, MachineOperand::CreateReg(VirtualDef1, /*isDef*/ true)); But when I do that in my code I get an assertion so I wasn't sure if it's legal or not. Thanks.

On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Christopher Lamb wrote: > I noticed that the TableGen code emitter generator assumes that the > instruction fields are declared in the instruction format in the > same order that operands are defined. This seems like a bad > dependence to me, and that TableGen should match the name of field > declared in the instruction with the name of the

Hi Tim, >That C++ function is probably what looks for an FrameIndex node and >has been taught that it can be folded into the load. How do you teach a function that a node can be folded into an instruction? ________________________________ From: Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:52 PM To: Josh Sharp Cc: via llvm-dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]

I noticed that the TableGen code emitter generator assumes that the instruction fields are declared in the instruction format in the same order that operands are defined. This seems like a bad dependence to me, and that TableGen should match the name of field declared in the instruction with the name of the operand in order to determine which operand of the MI to use . See

Hi there, I'm having a hard time with promoting operands from i1 to i32 in my backend... I have to register classes, VTs are i1 and i32. The i1 registers are only for predication and conditional jumps, so I want to use them with brcond, setcc. There are no instructions to directly load a value in an i1 register or to copy between i1 and i32, so I need the DAG Legalizing Pass to not generate