similar to: [LLVMdev] Q: When is a boolean not a boolean?

Jeremy Lakeman wrote: > A: When the types are created in different contexts. > > I've been running into a module validation error related to phi nodes > produced by the GVN pass, where the types of the incoming values aren't > the same instance of IntegerType i1. > > I'm not certain I've found the root cause of the problem yet, it's > probably due to my

Hello again :) It's been some time since I sent you last patch, but here I'm again. I send the patch for PR5373. Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr5373.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5913 bytes Desc: not available URL:

On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > The last bit here > > + if (LoopExitBB) { > + // It is possible that for both successors isTrivialLoopExitBlock() > + // returns different exit blocks. It means that the loop isn't trivial, > + // just quit then. > + if (LoopExitBB != LoopExitBB2) > + return false; > +

The last bit here + if (LoopExitBB) { + // It is possible that for both successors isTrivialLoopExitBlock() + // returns different exit blocks. It means that the loop isn't trivial, + // just quit then. + if (LoopExitBB != LoopExitBB2) + return false; + } else if (Val) { + // if LoopExitBB == LoopExitBB2 pick the first one (true). +

Sure On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, 9:40 AM Carlos Liam <carlos at aarzee.me> wrote: > It looks like there's already something similar in PropagateEquality which > eg X >= Y == true and replaces X < Y == false, which is somewhat similar - > could I base an addition off of that? > > > - CL > > On Jul 3, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>

Hello, I have been studying LLVM and started to create a new backend for a new RISC architecture. Now I need some help to get forward with my project. I'm quite new to compiling techniques so I'm sorry for the stupid questions. Question 1: My idea is to lower the select SDNode as follows: %res1 = %falseVal %res2 = setc %trueVal, %condition Where setc is conditional mov. The

I am trying to add support for select_cc. In ARM it can be implemented with: mov $dst, $falseVal cmp $a, $b moveq $dst, $trueVal My current strategy is to expand select_cc in two ARM nodes: ARM::SELECT and ARM::CMP. The two nodes would be connected by a flag edge. ARM::CMP would then expand to "cmp $a, $b". This instruction has no results. It only alters the CPSR (current program

Can someone explain how the condition code is passed from the MBlazeTargetLowering::LowerSELECT_CC to MBlazeTargetLowering::EmitCustomSelect custom inserter? In LowerSELECT_CC the condition code is never accessed (Op.GetOperand(4)) and I don't see how it ends up getting correctly passed to the MBlazeTargetLowering::EmitCustomSelect. > SDValue

Hi Rafael, > I am trying to add support for select_cc. In ARM it can be implemented > with: > > mov $dst, $falseVal > cmp $a, $b > moveq $dst, $trueVal The more normal ARM code, as produced by assembly writers and compilers that I've seen, is cmp $a, $b moveq $dst, $trueVal movne $dst, $falseVal e.g. at the end of a function returning r0 orr r0, r0, #0x40

Eli, Thanks for the tips. I've been able to get something working using a custom instruction inserter, however, I'm still having the problem of linking together the setcc and the select_cc commands. I want to turn the setcc into a comparison and use the results in the select_cc register. However, the comparison information is in the select_cc instruction and the result of the comparison

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > I am attempting to lower the selectCC instruction to the instruction set of > the backend I'm working on and I cannot seem to find a way to correctly > implement this instruction. I know how this instruction should get > implemented; I just have yet to find a way to do it. I want the select_cc

Hi folks, I'm hitting the below assertion failure when compiling this small piece of C code (repro.c, attached). My command line is: bin/clang --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -c -O2 repro.c clang is built from top of trunk as of this morning. It only happens at -O2, and it doesn't happen with the default target (x86_64). I tried to reproduce using just 'llc -O2' but didn't

Thanks for notifying me. Yes, this was a recent change. Taking a look now. On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Michael Kuperstein <mkuper at google.com> wrote: > +Sanjay, who touched this last. :-) > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ismail Badawi (ibadawi) via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I'm hitting the

I am attempting to lower the selectCC instruction to the instruction set of the backend I'm working on and I cannot seem to find a way to correctly implement this instruction. I know how this instruction should get implemented; I just have yet to find a way to do it. I want the select_cc instruction to be lowered into a comparison followed by a conditional move. I've attempted to use a

Sanjay: let me know if this is something that will apply to 3.9. Thanks, Hans On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Quick update - the bug existed before I refactored that chunk in > InstSimplify with: > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL275911 > > In fact, as discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537 - because we have a

Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Hi Hans - > > Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code > owner). The functional change was

In the following scrap of code (pared down from actually useful code), the func->dump() command segfaults iff the commented-out line is uncommented. This is with llvm 3.0. I'm only dipping my toes into the waters of llvm for the first time, and have no idea what I am doing incorrectly. In actual code, I would be wanting to call the memcpy intrinsic eventually, of course. int main(void)

David, Sanjay: ping? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: >> Hi

LGTM On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > David, Sanjay: ping? > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > >

Dear LLVM developers, I have a question regarding the IPSCCP class and the handling of dead blocks: The file lib/Transforms/Scalar/SCCP.cpp of llvm 2.8 from contains some code to deal with a dead block which could not be folded (line 1909ff). This happens when a user of this dead block is a branch or switch with an undef condition. The action taken than is to replace this terminator with an