similar to: [LLVMdev] Instruction Implementation

Hi, > def SUBCEIL_S : FFR<0x11, 0x3, 16, (outs FGR32:$fd), (ins FGR32:$fs), > "frac.s\t$fd, $fs", [(set (f32 FGR32:$fd), (fadd (f32 FGR32:$fs ),(f32 > (ceilf FGR32:$fs))))] >; > > it makes and install correctly but when i ll try to write code to use this > instruction there is no luck. More details (including the .ll source and *how* exactly things are

Hi and thanks for answering llc works fine just does not selecting my instruction i ve uploaded .ll file how can i include this attribute "readonly" so i can see if changes the generated assembly? my code is very simple int main (){ float d, d1 ; d= 12.3; d1 = d - ceilf(d); return 0; } -- View this message in context:

Hi, > i ve uploaded .ll file Is that the C file that's at the end of your message? To produce a .ll file, you give clang the "-emit-llvm" option (and probably "-S"). Anyway, what I see in the C you posted is that Clang is using constant folding to avoid doing any of the operations you've requested. A better C file test would be: float foo(float d) { return d -

>I'm also a little worried that your pattern has fadd, but your C >source has a subtraction. :S i wrote it wrong the true implementation is def SUBCEIL_S : FFR<0x11, 0x3, 16, (outs FGR32:$fd), (ins FGR32:$fs), "frac.s\t$fd, $fs", [(set (f32 FGR32:$fd), (fsub (f32 FGR32:$fs ),(f32 (ceilf FGR32:$fs))))] >; I use some C,C++ code to test my backend. i use clang

I'm trying to implement the standalone assembler for mips and I have encountered a problem in instruction operands matcher. In mips instruction set there are math instructions with two format flags in the mnemonic, one for source and one for destination register. For example ceil.w.s means both source and destination are F32 registers while ceil.l.d means both source and destination are F64

On May 22, 2012, at 8:05 AM, "Medic, Vladimir" <vmedic at mips.com> wrote: > I'm trying to implement the standalone assembler for mips and I have encountered a problem in instruction operands matcher. > In mips instruction set there are math instructions with two format flags in the mnemonic, one for source and one for destination register. > For example ceil.w.s

Tom, On Aug 21, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > I've been working on replacing the MachineOperand flags in the R600 > backend with immediate operands, but I can't figure out how to modify > the instruction patterns to make this work. For example, I have the class: > > class R600_1OP <bits<32> inst, string opName,

Hello, I am working on a backend for a custom ISA that is somewhat similar to the MicroBlaze ISA so I've decided to use that as a starting point. I am trying to compile a custom ray tracer (lots of floating point) and the llvm-g++ frontend generates an fneg instruction which is not supported by the MBlaze backend in the 2.8 release. I added code to emit an fneg assembly instruction and now

All, The code generator operand class, MachineOperand, has an 8-bit TargetFlags field that the individual targets can use as they please. X86 and ARM use it to encode linker magic on symbol operands. It has been mentioned a couple of times on this list that it is not safe to use TargetFlags on register operands. This is because many target-independent passes are manipulating register operands

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 04:30:13PM -0700, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > All, > > The code generator operand class, MachineOperand, has an 8-bit TargetFlags field that the individual targets can use as they please. X86 and ARM use it to encode linker magic on symbol operands. > > It has been mentioned a couple of times on this list that it is not safe to use TargetFlags on

Hello, why LLVM does not define physical register limits for MIPS by overriding the TargetRegisterInfo::getRegPressureLimit function the way it’s done for X86 in x86RegisterInfo.cpp and ARM. Thanks in advance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120818/a8e4f353/attachment.html>

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Owen Anderson > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:37 AM > To: Stellard, Thomas > Cc: llvmdev at cs.illinois.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] No more TargetFlags on MO_Register > MachineOperands > > Tom, > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Tom

Hi all, I ran ../llvm/configure CC=g44 CXX=g++44 and the exit code was 0, but in config.log I found errors (mostly about missing files) and warnings (mostly about conflicts in builtin functions). I thought maybe the fact I later get compilation errors when running make is related to these. How do I correct these errors? or can they be ignored? The full list of errors from config.log is

On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:34 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] >> On Behalf Of Owen Anderson >> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:37 AM >> To: Stellard, Thomas >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.illinois.edu >>

Hi All, I am first time trying build CLANG+LLVM using cmake+ninja build system. I updated all my CLANG+LLVM sources to current trunk, and I successfully built it using classic *make* build system. But, trying to build the same with cmake+ninja build system resulting in following build failures for compiler-rt sources. Am I missing something basics here? ==================== cmake command used:

I use latest cmake+ninja which are built from latest sources. ================================= > cmake --version cmake version 2.8.9.20121011-g2876 ================================= -- mahesha On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I am first time trying build CLANG+LLVM using cmake+ninja build > system. I updated all

I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I don't think that's terribly viable here. We should be able to build ubsan's runtime with standards conforming code unless there is some fairly extreme reason not to... On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. > > Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I > don't think that's terribly viable here. Just out of curiosity - why isn't that viable? I'd sort of hope to treat optional sanitizer runtimes

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:09 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. > > > > Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I > > don't think that's terribly viable

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:46:47PM +0400, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > This file is for configure+make build, not CMake, so I'm not sure why > it's being included into your build (these failures aren't > reproducible for me). > Can you please list the exact steps you're doing to build LLVM with > CMake and make sure you don't have additional CFLAGS (LDFLAGS etc)