similar to: [LLVMdev] Generate addi 40, r3 instruction

Hi Vikram, The error message would be helpful, but the most likely problem is the duplication of $dst. It should probably be: def ADDI : F1<opcode, (outs IntRegs:$dst), (ins IntRegs:$src, i32imm:$imm) "addi $imm, $dst", [(set $IntRegs:$dst, (add $IntRegs:$src, i32imm:$c))]> { let Constraints = "$src = $dst"; } i.e. separate

Hi! I'm writing a new back-end for a new architecture. First, I'll do some "tests" with an existing back-end (I chose the Sparc back-end). My architecture has special address-registers and I want to add such new address-registers to my Sparc back-end. 1) I defined a new register call AddrRegs 2) I registered the class AddrRegs (addRegisterClass(MVT::iPTR, .. )) 3) I

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:59 AM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 06:26, Gleb Popov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> While the store is being selected LLVM will just treat the value being > >> stored as a generic pointer-width integer unless you have written a > >> specific pattern for

I am trying to make the ARM backend compile int f() {return 0;} I have added a custom expansion of ret that is similar to the one used in ppc and sparc. If I understand it correctly, it will expand the ret into an assignment to the return register (R0) and a RETFLAG node. I declared the bx instruction to match RETFLAG. Now the instruction selection says it can't match " i32 = Constant

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. >

On Oct 19, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Boris Boesler wrote: > Hi! > > I'm writing a new back-end for a new architecture. First, I'll do > some "tests" with an existing back-end (I chose the Sparc back-end). > My architecture has special address-registers and I want to add such > new address-registers to my Sparc back-end. > > 1) I defined a new register call

Hello! I'm working on a new back-end and have hit a bit of a snag. I'm working on getting selectcc working and have followed the MSP430 model of emitting a custom CMP and SELECT_CC node and matching that with a pseudo-instruction that has useCustomEmitter=1. However, my output ends up very wrong, despite the Machine code being initially correct: # Machine code for function func: Function

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

I have updated TableGen to support a new format for instruction selection patterns. Before: def : Pat<(subc IntRegs:$b, IntRegs:$c), (SUBCCrr IntRegs:$b, IntRegs:$c)>; After: def : Pat<(subc i32:$b, i32:$c), (SUBCCrr $b, $c)>; Since the pattern matching happens on a DAG with type labels, not register classes, I think it makes more sense to specify types directly on the input

Richard Osborne wrote: > It seems to me that emitting DWARF line number information using .loc > directives is currently broken. CellSPU is currently the only in tree > target that sets HasDotLocAndDotFile in its MCAsmInfo and I can't get it > to produce any line number information. > I think I understand why this is happening. Since HasDotLocAndDotFile is set the

On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for your response. > > Le 06/03/2012 22:54, Jim Grosbach a écrit : >> Hi Ivan, >> On Mar 3, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm facing a problem in llvm while porting it

Hi all, I'm trying to figure out how to add the instructions required for llvm.atomic.cmp.swap.i32 on PowerPC. I figured out LWARX (patch attached) but the other two (CMP_UNRESw and STWCX) require multiple instructions: let Defs = [CR0] in { def STWCX : Pseudo<(outs), (ins GPRC:$rS, memrr:$dst, i32imm:$label), "stwcx. $rS, $dst\n\tbne-

Hi The construct in sparc def LEA_ADDri : F3_2<2, 0b000000, (outs IntRegs:$dst), (ins MEMri:$addr), "add ${addr:arith}, $dst", [(set IntRegs:$dst, ADDRri:$addr)]>; generate instruction like : add %fp, -20, %l1 in my port it generate like : addi %fp, -20, %r2 But the problem is that our ISA does not support the

Hi, I have reworked my previous example and got something which is accepted by tblgen: let isCall = 1, Defs = [R0, R1, R2, R3, R12, LR, D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, CPSR] in { def ARM_ATOMIC_CMP_SWAP : ABXI<0b1011, (outs GPR:$dst), (ins i32imm:$ptr, i32imm:$old, i32imm:$new), "do_something", [(set GPR:$dst, (atomic_cmp_swap_32

Ok, after a long detour I am back to where I have started. I think there is a problem at dep DAG construction. Let me try to convince you. Here is the C code we are dealing with: push () { struct xx_stack *stack, *top; for (stack = xx_stack; stack; stack = stack->next) top = stack; yy_instr = top->first; } If the loop never iterates, "top" will have

Sergei, Absolutely right, the copy/ldriw should not be reordered. I was attempting to explain that I consider it a phi-elimination bug, not a DAG builder bug. Liveness will also have problems with this code in the long run. To avoid confusion, I filed PR13112: Phi elimination generates uninitialized vreg uses, and disabled the SSA check until its fixes in r158461. However, your C code is also

On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Andy, > > You are probably right here – look at this – before phi elimination this code looks much more sane: > > # *** IR Dump After Live Variable Analysis ***: > # Machine code for function push: SSA > Function Live Outs: %R0 > > BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry >

Andy, You are probably right here - look at this - before phi elimination this code looks much more sane: # *** IR Dump After Live Variable Analysis ***: # Machine code for function push: SSA Function Live Outs: %R0 BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry %vreg5<def> = IMPLICIT_DEF; IntRegs:%vreg5 %vreg4<def> = TFRI_V4 <ga:@xx_stack>; IntRegs:%vreg4

Hi, I was wondering if there is a way to specify macros to help shorten rewriting patterns like these: def : Pat <(v4i8 (mul (v4i8 IntRegs:$a), (v4i8 IntRegs:$b))), (v4i8 (VTRUNEHB (v4i16 (VTRUNEWH (v2i32 (VMPYH (v2i16 (EXTRACT_SUBREG (v4i16 (VSXTBH (v4i8 IntRegs:$a))), subreg_hireg)), (v2i16 (EXTRACT_SUBREG (v4i16 (VSXTBH (v4i8

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:08 PM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 12:16, Gleb Popov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 1. Where does it come from? Can I do anything to make it not appear? > > It comes from something like: > > %ptr = alloca i8 > %var = alloca i8* > store i8* %ptr, i8**