similar to: [LLVMdev] A simpler method to reject undefined encodings

Hi Mihail, > static DecodeStatus CheckNEONConstraint(const MCInst &Inst, unsigned Insn) [...] > ConstraintCheckMethod = "CheckNEONConstraint" In general I like the idea of an instruction-validation method. I think it could also potentially solve the SoftFail/UNPREDICTABLE issues that are looming (and partially resolved for decoding at present). However, I think that to cope

> But where is the flat set? Maybe I can debug and check what is going on. The MCInstrDesc are in a table in lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCGenInstrInfo.inc of your build directory. > Some additional information: > > MCInst opcode: 0x7cb > Decode Index: 0x1e I had assumed this would have dissembled to '// Inst #234 = BC' which does have the branch flag set, but I think that

The `isBranch` flag is already set on the branch instructions. Furthermore, we do use the `isBranch()` query in a few places in the PPC back end, so this does work. Perhaps there's something specific about the lldb usage? Is it somehow possible that the `isBranch()` query is called on the wrong instruction? Would you be able to provide a test case that reproduces the issue? On Thu, Nov 30,

Helper function: template<typename InsnType> static InsnType fieldFromInstruction(InsnType insn, unsigned startBit, unsigned numBits) { assert(startBit + numBits <= (sizeof(InsnType)*8) && "Instruction field out of bounds!"); InsnType fieldMask; if (numBits == sizeof(InsnType)*8) fieldMask =

Hi, In GCC there is one useful option -dp (or -dP for more verbose output) to annotate assembler with instruction patterns, that was used when assembler was generated. For example: double test(long long s) { return s; } gcc -S -dp -O0 test.c test: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc pushq %rbp # 18 *pushdi2_rex64/1 [length = 1] .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 movq %rsp, %rbp # 19 *movdi_1_rex64/2

On 02.03.2012, at 09:20, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote: > Hi, > > In GCC there is one useful option -dp (or -dP for more verbose output) > to annotate assembler with instruction patterns, that was used when > assembler was generated. For example: The internal "-mllvm -show-mc-inst" option is probably as close as you can get. $ clang -S -O0 test.c -mllvm -show-mc-inst -o

I'm working on a disassembler for hexagon (vliw) architecture and I would like to add an additional operand type, "kAux" to the MCOperand class. The reason for this is that each insn has parse bits which are not explicit operands and have differing meanings based on the insn's location within the packet and the number of insns inside the packet. In order for the disassembler

On 06/25/2013 04:46 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > Hi Sid, > > This feels like it’s exposing too much of the disassembler internals > into the MCOperand representation. I’m not sure I follow why that’s > necessary. Can you elaborate a bit? > A packet contains 1-4 insns and until the contents of the entire packet are known the meaning of any individual insn is not known with 100%

Hi, I want to encode Loongson ISA initially https://gist.github.com/xiangzhai/8ae6966e2f02a94e180dd16ff1cd60ac gslbx           $2,0($3,$4) It is equivalent to: dadd $1, $3, $4 lb $2,0($1) I just use  mem_simmptr  as the default value of  DAGOperand MO , because  MipsMemAsmOperand  use  parseMemOperand  to parse general  MemOffset  and only *one*  AnyRegister , for example: 0($1) But 

On 7 November 2011 22:00, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > We are starting on our third (and hopefully last) round of testing for LLVM 3.0. Please visit: > >        http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.0/rc3/ > > for the sources. There are also binaries for Darwin up there, with more to come during the week. Please build this release candidate, test it out on your

Can someone explain what MCInst is vs. MachineIntr? I'm porting some patches we have here that affect MachineInstrs and am wondering whether I need to make similar changes in MCInst. Why do we have two machine instruction representations? -Dave

Hi Sid, This feels like it’s exposing too much of the disassembler internals into the MCOperand representation. I’m not sure I follow why that’s necessary. Can you elaborate a bit? -Jim On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Sid Manning <sidneym at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > I'm working on a disassembler for hexagon (vliw) architecture and I would like to add an additional operand type,

Dear All, I am following a flow to generate object files(.o) from input (.s assembly) files. The input .s is given to AsmParser, which creates MCInst after matching instruction opcode. These MCInst are converted to MCStream and then finally emitting to an object file using Target Code Emitter. I am considering whether hazard recognition can be done on the list of MCInst, which I get after

Hi all. I'm looking for some way to do code analysis with LLVM. Can someone please give me a hint, if it is possible to query an MCInst for what are input operands and what are output operands? Small example. Consider we have an instruction: str r1, [sp, #8] Being mapped into MCInst instance it has the following operands: <MCOperand Reg:61> <-- maps to reg r1

Hi, Dear LLVM Dev Group, I am doing an LLVM project aimed to disassemble an ARM ELF binary executable to the MCInst format, inserting some instructions or doing some modification, and re-assemble the MCInst to an ELF binary. As I used the llvm-mc, it seems to only have the option "llvm-mc -disassemble", which reads strings and output strings. Is there any command or function that can

In r198030 the last in tree backend was converted to use MCInst for printing assembly. I removed support for the old printer in r198959. Out of tree targets have to lower MachineInstr to MCInst to use the new printer. Cheers, Rafael

On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:34 PM, David Greene wrote: > Can someone explain what MCInst is vs. MachineIntr? Sure. MCInst is designed to be part of the "MC" set of libraries, which is stuff dealing with machine code. We're building a suite of assemblers and disassemblers out of this. MCInst is integral to this plan. For an assembler you have two pieces: 1. "Recognize"

On Friday 10 July 2009 00:19, Chris Lattner wrote: > asmprinter::printInstruction will lower a MachineInstr to an MCInst, > then call the MCInst asmprinter to do the hard formatting work. You > can see a horrible simple skeleton of this idea in > X86ATTAsmPrinter::printMachineInstruction. Yep, that's where I hit the problem. I'm patching the sources for the comment emitter

Hello all, We're developing an integrated assembler for a VLIW target, and some of the optimizing our assembler needs to do must be done on a per-packet basis. This requires us to be able to traverse instruction within a packet, and one particular optimization requires traversal of previous packets as well. We're considering adding support for MCInst bundles in the MC layer to

Hello everyone, I'm a newbie of llvm. I'm trying to insert Intel MPX instruction BNDCU with BuildMI. I add my machinefunctionpass at addPreEmitPass2. Here is the code of insertion: BuildMI(MBB, MI, DL, TII->get(X86::BNDCU64rr)).addReg(X86::BND2, RegState::Define).addReg(X86::R10); And here is to stack track when I compiler program with modified llc: