similar to: [LLVMdev] Load Instruction that changes value of two registers

On Sep 5, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> wrote: > clearKillFlags seems a little "overkill" to me. In this case you could just simply transfer the value of the kill flag from the SrcReg to the DstReg. We are extending the live-range of SrcReg. I do not see how you could relate that to the kill flag of DstReg. Therefore, I still think, this is the

Hi, We are using a vector_insert in our target, to describe an instruction performing a lane-load of a vector register as: set $dstReg, (vector_insert $dstReg, (load $addr)), imm:$lane) However, this means that the dstReg is also marked as used in the instruction, which we do not want. We can do a direct lane-load to a part of the vector register without disturbing the rest, and hence would

On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > I am considering adding a new target independent codegen-only COPY instruction to our MachineInstr representation. It would be used to replace INSERT_SUBREG, EXTRACT_SUBREG, and virtual register copies after instruction selection. Selection DAG still needs {INSERT,EXTRACT}_SUBREG, but they would not appear as MachineInstrs any longer.

It appears that it's impossible to duplicate a node in the dag. For example, there is some code: b = a * a; // a is a global int A LD node is generated for A and it goes into both Operand 0 and 1 of the MUL node. The issue is I'm trying to match a pattern of: set dstReg:$dstD (OpNode (srcAType (load addr32:$srcA)), (srcBType (load addr32:$srcB))) so basically a mem, mem, reg

Thanks Markus. Having llvm-as to turn the extracted function.bc file to .ll caused an error saying: *llvm-as-3.4: function_bc:1:1: error: expected top-level entity* *BC! #AI29bEBB2I (some more binary)* This error is just the same error that I received while using llvm-extract on a .c file (not .bc or .ll). Do I have to include other things in the command ? I mean generating a function.ll

I am considering adding a new target independent codegen-only COPY instruction to our MachineInstr representation. It would be used to replace INSERT_SUBREG, EXTRACT_SUBREG, and virtual register copies after instruction selection. Selection DAG still needs {INSERT,EXTRACT}_SUBREG, but they would not appear as MachineInstrs any longer. The COPY instruction handles subreg operations with less

Hi Bill, I am using the following version of BuildMI : MachineInstrBuilder BuildMI(MachineFunction &MF, const TargetInstrDesc &TID, unsigned DestReg) I do the following : void createInstrs(std::vector<MachineInstr *>& ilist) { Machine Instr *mi; mi = BuildMI(MF, someTID, somereg);

Hi Quentin, Jonas looked further into the problem below, and asked me to submit his patch. Note the we have our own out-of-tree target, and we have not been able to reproduce this problem on an in-tree target. /Patrik Hägglund [MachineSinking] Conservatively clear kill flags after coalescing. This solves the problem of having a kill flag inside a loop with a definition of the register prior to

I'm working on a target based on the MIPS target, and when I copy f64 values into 32 bit registers for calling functions, I need the operation to work on a of 32 bit registers (because the language I'm translating to isn't actually mips). I've been looking at how to do this, but I haven't been able to figure it out. Since the Mips target code is still really close to mine,

Here is the instruction in question: multiclass AD<string asmstr, SDPatternOperator OpNode, RegisterClass srcAReg, RegisterClass dstReg, ValueType srcAType, ValueType dstType, Operand ImmOd, ImmLeaf imm_type> { def REG_REG : SetADInOut<asmstr, srcAReg, dstReg, [(set dstReg:$dstD, (OpNode srcAReg:$srcA))]>; def IMM_REG :

1. MOV16Copy_IMM_REG is the instruction matched, sorry. AD is the multiclass. The IMM in my case is a global. So you can see that GPRBaseRegs, GPRBaseRegs sets the registerclass for both the src and dst operands, in this case (MOV16Copy_IMM_REG) it's the dst. 2. Yes I agree, it most likely would. Honestly, this comes across like a bug, or unintended feature. It's adding an extra COPY to

I have not tried 3.5, it's a significant amount of work to port from one version to the next though, I did not personally do the 3.4 to 3.6 porting. I agree though, it was very strange that it suddenly just changed behavior. It looks like to me that InstrEmitter.cpp:getVR is the one assigning the virtual register no? Though this code in CreateVirtualRegisters: const TargetRegisterClass *RC

AddRegisterOperand calls getVR and yes, I think an IMPLICIT_DEF is being generated. On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I have not tried 3.5, it's a significant amount of work to port from one > version to the next though, I did not

Where does the unsignedSub come from? On 2017-02-15 20:38, Ryan Taylor wrote: > Sorry, it should be: > > defm SUB16u_ : ABD_NonCommutative<"sub16u", unsignedSub, LOADRegs, > GPRRegs, DSTRegs, i16, i16, i16, uimm16, immZExt16x>; > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I see. If I put simm16 and

Hi LLVM, IRBuilder can fold constants (that behaviour can be controlled by Folder type). What do you think about optionally allow IRBuilder to eliminate no-op instructions like `add %a, 0` or `memcpy(%a, %b, 0)`? - Paweł -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150423/4f99a092/attachment.html>

BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry %vreg0<def> = MOV16Copy_IMM_REG <ga:@a+1>[TF=1]; GPRRegs:%vreg0 %vreg1<def> = COPY %vreg0; PTRRegs:%vreg1 GPRRegs:%vreg0 Send_iii %NULLR0, %vreg1<kill>, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0; PTRRegs:%vreg1 RetRA This is what I get. This is what I'd like to get: BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry %vreg0<def> = MOV16Copy_IMM_REG

I am seeing the following assertion in leak detector. /llvm/lib/VMCore/LeakDetector.cpp:43: void<unnamed>::LeakDetectorImpl<T>::addGarbage(const T*) [with T = void]: Assertion `Ts.count(Cache) == 0 && "Object already in set!"' failed. I am creating a list of instructions using BuildMI() and adding them to a basic block using BB->insert(). I am seeing this

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Manjunath Kudlur <keveman at gmail.com> wrote: > I am seeing the following assertion in leak detector. > > /llvm/lib/VMCore/LeakDetector.cpp:43: > void<unnamed>::LeakDetectorImpl<T>::addGarbage(const T*) [with T = > void]: Assertion `Ts.count(Cache) == 0 && "Object already in set!"' > failed. > > I am

Ryan, I don't think I fully understand the problem you described, but please see the comments below. Hope this helps you solve the problem. On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, ryan baird <ryanrbaird at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm working on a target based on the MIPS target, and when I copy f64 > values into 32 bit registers for calling functions, I need the operation to > work

I see. If I put simm16 and immSExt16x in place of uimm16 and immZExt16x respectively, the imm matches but it prints out -32768 (which is invalid for sub16u). We are using uimm16 not match unsigned but for PrintMethod, effectively uimm16 and simm16 are both Operand<i16>. I'm still unclear why simm16 matches and uimm16 does not. Here is the pattern if that helps at all. So just as a