similar to: [LLVMdev] how to interpret MRMDestReg in X86InstrFormat.td?

I am attempting to create an instruction which takes a single 64-bit immediate. This doesn't seem like a thing that would exist already (because who needs an instruction which just takes an immediate?) How might I implement this easily? Perhaps I could use a format which encodes a register, which is then unused? Thanks for the help. Gus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

You are right. But when i defined my instruction as follows: def P_256B_VADD : I<0xE1, MRMDestReg, (outs VRP_2048:$dst), (ins VRP_2048:$src1, VRPIM_2048:$src2),"P_256B_VADD\t{$src1, $src2, $dst|$dst, $src1, $src2}", [(set VRP_2048:$dst, (add (v64i32 VRP_2048:$src1), (v64i32 VRP_2048:$src2)))]>, VEX_4V; I get opcode conflicts? Then what to do? On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:51 AM,

Thank You. My add instruction has TA as follows: def P_256B_VADD : I<0xE1, MRMDestReg, (outs VRP_2048:$dst), (ins VRP_2048:$src1, VRPIM_2048:$src2),"P_256B_VADD\t{$src1, $src2, $dst|$dst, $src1, $src2}", [(set VRP_2048:$dst, (add (v64i32 VRP_2048:$src1), (v64i32 VRP_2048:$src2)))]>, TA; so i defined; bool HasTA = TSFlags & X86II::TA; in x86MCCodeEmitter.cpp then used

Sorry to ask but what does it mean to put both? On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Leave TA. Put both. > > ~Craig > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:00 PM, hameeza ahmed <hahmed2305 at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> You are right. But when i defined my instruction as follows: >> def P_256B_VADD : I<0xE1,

I was getting same error when i keep both EVEX/EVEX_4V and TA. So, i restored my original instructions and for that i have to include bool HasTA = TSFlags & X86II::TA; in x86MCCodeEmitter.cpp then used this condition; if(HasTA) ++SrcRegNum; in order to emit binary correctly. Is it right? On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: >

Thank You. I used EVEX_4V with all the instructions. I replaced TA and EVEX both with EVEX_4V. Now, I am getting following error: llvm-tblgen: /utils/TableGen/X86RecognizableInstr.cpp:687: void llvm::X86Disassembler::RecognizableInstr::emitInstructionSpecifier(): Assertion `numPhysicalOperands >= 2 + additionalOperands && numPhysicalOperands <= 4 + additionalOperands &&

Thank You, I changed TA to EVEX or EVEX_4V. But now i am getting following error: Invalid prefix! UNREACHABLE executed at /lib/Target/X86/MCTargetDesc/X86MCCodeEmitter.cpp:647! On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Not all instructions can use EVEX_4V. Move instructions in particular > cannot because they don't have 2 sources. >

Hello, I am trying to emit binary for my implemented vector instructions. Although yet i havent done any change or addition in MC framework, For vector load instruction there are no error coming. But for vector add instruction is something like this; > %R_0_REG2048b_1<def> = P_256B_VADD %R_0_REG2048b_1<kill>, %R_0_REG2048b_0<kill> I am getting the following error: Unknown

Copy Ii32 in X86InstrFormats.td rename to Ii64 and change Imm32 to Imm64. Instantiate your instruction inheriting from Ii64. Pass RawFrm to the form parameter. Initial documentation for the encoding system is attached. ~Craig On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Gus Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am attempting to create an instruction which takes a single

Thank You. I have seen the opcode is 8 bits and all the combinations are already used in llvm x86. Now what to do? On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes its an opcode conflict. You'll have to look through Intel documents > and find an unused opcode. I've only added instructions based on a real > spec so I don't know

hi, at the moment, TEST instruction is defined with 0xf7 opcode, as demonstrated below. $ echo "0xf7 0xc0 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x22"|./Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -disassemble -arch=x86 .section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions testl $570425344, %eax ## imm = 0x22000000 however, i cannot find anywhere this F7 opcode is defined in

llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td: class X86Inst<bits<8> opcod, Format f, ImmType i, dag ops, string AsmStr> : Instruction { .... dag OperandList = ops; string AsmString = AsmStr; } def MOV32mi : Ii32<0xC7, MRM0m, (ops i32mem:$dst, i32imm:$src), "mov{l} {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}">; I cannot find any document on initializing the

On Fri, 6 May 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td: > class X86Inst<bits<8> opcod, Format f, ImmType i, dag ops, string > AsmStr> : Instruction { > .... > dag OperandList = ops; > string AsmString = AsmStr; > } > > def MOV32mi : Ii32<0xC7, MRM0m, (ops i32mem:$dst, i32imm:$src), > "mov{l}

The macro $src, $dest used in Instruction::AsmString must be "declared" in Instruction::OperandList, right? $$ has special meaning? On 5/6/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > > llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td: > > class X86Inst<bits<8> opcod, Format f, ImmType i, dag ops, string > >

I am new to the LLVM backends, I am wondering how instruction selection is done in LLVM backends, I looked at the .td files in Target/X86, they all seem to be small and do not deal with common X86 instructions, i.e. mov, push, pop, etc. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi all, I'm trying to simulate an extended x86 architecture on gem5 with several new instructions. My hardware setup is done and now I'd like llvm to accept the existence of the new instruction passed in inline assembly and output the correct opcode and registers. I chose the two-byte opcode 0x0F 0x7A and I would like the instruction to have the same operands and return values as CVTPS2PI

Thank You. But can we use same register class for fadd as well, is this instruction correct? def VFADD : I<0x0E, MRMDestReg, (outs VRR128:$dst), (ins VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2),"VFADD\t{$src1, $src2, $dst|$dst, $src1, $src2}", [(set VRR128:$dst, (fadd VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2))]>, TA; On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: >

There is some redundancy at the instruction format level in the x86 .td files. For example, in X86InstrFormats.td: // SSE1 Instruction Templates: // // SSI - SSE1 instructions with XS prefix. class SSI<bits<8> o, Format F, dag outs, dag ins, string asm, list<dag> pattern> : I<o, F, outs, ins, asm, pattern>, XS, Requires<[HasSSE1]>; // SSE3 Instruction

On Monday 30 March 2009 16:12, David Greene wrote: > There is some redundancy at the instruction format level in the x86 .td > files. For example, in X86InstrFormats.td: > > // SSE1 Instruction Templates: > // > // SSI - SSE1 instructions with XS prefix. > > class SSI<bits<8> o, Format F, dag outs, dag ins, string asm, list<dag> > pattern> > >

tl;dr, I'd like to add my own instruction, but I'm running into problems due to my lack of x86 encoding/decoding understanding. Hello all. Currently, I'm working on adding my own x86 instruction. I have done this once before; the basic process I used was: 1. Find an unused opcode, e.g. 0xF1 in this table: http://ref.x86asm.net/coder32.html 2. Insert an instruction into