similar to: [LLVMdev] BasicTansformInfoPass

On Mar 22, 2013, at 5:06 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Does anyone know if this really needs to be an immutable pass? [snip] I don't know the answers to your questions, but ARM allows mixed ARM and THUMB instructions using the blx instruction. Can you not do something similar to what the ARM backend does to handle it? -- Stephen Checkoway

Yes, you could have mips16 and fastcc. Mips16 just means that processor mode to execute that function is "mips16". So in a mips16 designated function, I will just emit mips16 instructions and in a "nomips16" function, just emit normal mips32 instructions. I tend to call this "mips32" normal mode, "standard encoding" because in reality the processor is

I think that Bill Wendlings new attribute implementation would allow me to do this but it is not ready yet. Maybe it's okay to just add them to the list of function attributes as I suggested. But in the end, someone has to approve the checkin. On 01/11/2013 07:35 AM, Reed Kotler wrote: > Yes, you could have mips16 and fastcc. > > Mips16 just means that processor mode to execute

For target dependent function level attributes, do I need to actually add them to the enumeration in attributes.h? I have for example, mips16 and nomips16 as attributes. Or is this supposed to be done with cc <n>

Depends on whether its actually the calling convention, or just an annotation (I don't know MIPS that well). Could you ever have a case where you want to declare a function as both mips16 and fastcc, or some other explicit calling convention? For PTX, we added two calling conventions to mark kernel functions (callable by host) from device functions (not callable by host). But this

What I am thinking of now is to just register the MIPS116 and MIPS32 DAGToDAGISel passes and then within run on machine function, I can just return if the current mode indicates that mips16 is needed for example, so the run on machine function for Mips32 would return immediately. On 03/27/2013 10:05 AM, Reed Kotler wrote: > I guess another way to do this is to just register both passes for

So the switching between mips16 and mips32 on a per function basis seems to basically be working except that asm printer has some kind of issue here. I'm debugging that now. I get this: lc: /home/rkotler/workspace/llvmpb6/include/llvm/MC/MCStreamer.h:224: void llvm::MCStreamer::SwitchSection(const llvm::MCSection*): Assertion `Section && "Cannot switch to a null

This seems to work okay. I register both the Mips16 and non Mips16 passes of the instruction selector and then those return false if they are not supposed to be running. Make-check at least passes in this case. So in principle turn on the dual mode now and debug whatever misc is left. For this I insert another pass before the mips16 and non mips16 passes. On 03/27/2013 10:19 AM, Reed Kotler

Just realized that BasicTransformInfoClass is an immutable pass. Not sure how to reconcile this with fact that there will be different answers needed depending on the subtarget. Seems like BasicTansformInfoClass should become a function pass that does not modify anything. On 03/22/2013 09:43 AM, Reed Kotler wrote: > Another way to do this would to be to have a reset virtual function >

Hi Reed, We will need to reconstruct the target machine and the TTI chain when the function attributes change. We currently don't have code for doing that but I suggest that you talk with Bill Wendling about the best way to implement this. Thanks, Nadav On Mar 22, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Just realized that BasicTransformInfoClass is an

On 01/04/2013 06:08 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:08 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> I'm working on mips16 hard float which at a first approximation is just soft >> float but calls different library routines. Those different library routines >> are just an implementation (in mips32 mode) of soft float using mips32 >>

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:28 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > On 01/04/2013 06:08 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:08 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'm working on mips16 hard float which at a first approximation is just >>> soft >>> float but calls different library

On 01/04/2013 07:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:28 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 01/04/2013 06:08 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:08 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >>>> I'm working on mips16 hard float which at a first approximation is just >>>> soft

On 05/14/2012 02:42 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > On May 14, 2012, at 2:28 PM, reed kotler wrote: > >> I'm not using getMinimalPhysRegClass. Some target independent code is using it. > Probably PEI. > >> It makes trouble for us and I would like to submit a patch to make it a virtual function so that I can override it and make it meaningful for Mips, as long as this

We already divided out our classes as you did for ARM. The problem here is that we have a store/load byte/halfword to/from a Frame object. We know at that time that it's not going to be possible to store it using SP because there is only such instructions for store/load of a word. What we would want to do is to move SP into a Mips 16 register and then do a indexed load/store off of that

So what I realized is that you can't use the simple scavenger trick where you create the virtual register and use the more advanced features. This is because you can't call forward() in any form if there are virtual registers being used by any of the instructions in the basic block. This will cause forward to fail. Maybe this is a bug in forward() On 02/05/2013 02:51 PM, Reed Kotler

Reed, On May 14, 2012, at 3:45 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > On 05/14/2012 02:42 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >> On May 14, 2012, at 2:28 PM, reed kotler wrote: >> >>> I'm not using getMinimalPhysRegClass. Some target independent code is using it. >> Probably PEI. >> >>> It makes trouble for us and I would like to

We are starting to look at the mips16 and micro mips ports. There are various design issues that people may have some good input on. Especially in how to structure the TD files and other optimizer issues. Mips16 is sort of like thumb and Micro Mips like thumb2 as far as I understand. Mips16 or Micro Mips can live inside of either MIPS32 or MIPS64. In gcc, it's possible using attributes to

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:16 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > On 01/04/2013 07:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:28 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 01/04/2013 06:08 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:08 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com>

Actually, SP is already not in the mips 16 register class but there is some C++ code that is common to mips32, mips64 and mips16 that is wanting to use SP. It's kind of awkward but does work except in this case of load/store haflword and byte to stack objects. Maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot there. I don't know that code too well so maybe I need to look into it. There are