similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM IR, Instructions, Backend, AsmPrinter

Dear, Can anybody comment on inserting inline assembly in LLVM IR? -- Pratik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140620/03400e95/attachment.html>

Dear, I am currently working on one specific architecture. When I make changes and try to "make" it takes a very long time as It compiles all the files in the source. My question is since I am only editing a few files in the architecture directory and some files in include directory, Can I speed up my "make" by running "make" only for a few files? Can such changes

Dear, I have the following problem. I am given 2 instructions say I1 and I2 whose selection should depend on the operands. Say the operands have a boolean attribute 'attr'. I would like to select I1 and I2 by some logic that involves the 'attr' attribute of all the operands involved. eg: If all operands have attr set to True, I want I1 to be selected to operate else I2. How can I

Dear, I am looking at the Instructions defined in the XXXXInstrInfo.td where I can see a def record defined like below def ADD8rr : I8rr<0x0, (outs GR8:$dst), (ins GR8:$src, GR8:$src2), "add.b\t{$src2, $dst}", [(set GR8:$dst, (*add *GR8:$src, GR8:$src2)), (implicit SRW)]>; Now here I would like the to

Dear, I am looking to build a compiler-assembler with a custom architecture. I have a new Instruction set defined with me and I would like atleast my C programs to get converted to assembly language corresponding to the custom architecture. I have been going through llvm and its resources on the web, Can any one of you offer guidance about the above problem. All I want is to develop a tool

Dear all I use R for Windows 2.3.1 on a fully updated Windows XP Home SP2 machine and I have two related regular expression problems. platform i386-pc-mingw32 arch i386 os mingw32 system i386, mingw32 status major 2 minor

When I was trying to run mutiple E1s over TDMoE, the zaptel would drivers complain about too little memory, whenever I added more than 31 channels. Requesting 62 channels in a dynamic span gave me ... span creation failed: Cannot allocate memory upon loading the zaptel drivers. How would you go about running, 8 or 16 say, E1s over TDMoE? Would you create multiple dynamic spans or just one large

Some of the optimizations that the first DAG combine performs is counter productive for our 8-bit target. For example in: // I dropped the types because they are irrelevant. // Excuse me for changing the syntax... store %tmp1, %var %tmp2 = load %var %tmp4 = add %tmp3, %tmp2 Since load is the only user of var and since var has just be stored to, it assumes that %tmp1 is alive and it goes ahead

Hello R experts, I'd like to studentize a matrix (tmp1) by column using apply() function and skip some specific values such as zeros in the example below to tmp2 but not tmp3. I used the script below and only can get a matrix tmp3. Could you please help me to studentize the matrix (tmp1) without changing the zeros and generate a new matrix tmp2? Thanks, Joshua tmp1 [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4]

I can't think of any workaround? this optimization eliminates so much information that if we want to retrieve back, it will take a lot of processing and may not necessarily be able to retrieve the lost information for all cases. Besides, why does the generic part of llvm have to force an optimization that is counter productive to some targets? If there are other phases that do the same

Hi, I have two problems regarding the llvm.stackrestore intrinsic. I'm running on 3.0, but a quick test on trunk also showed the same behavior. First problem: --------------- I have code like: tmp1 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp2 = alloca [do some stuff with tmp2] call llvm.stackrestore(tmp1) [some other stuff] tmp3 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp4 = alloca [do some stuff

Dan Gohman wrote: > There certainly are wishlist items for TableGen and TableGen-based > instruction descriptions, though I don't know of an official list. > Offhand, > a few things that come to mind are the ability to handle nodes with > multiple results, Is there an official workaround, BTW? - Volodya

Hi, I'm using LLVM 2.7 right now, and I found "opt -std-compile-opts" has missed some opportunities for optimization: define void @spa.main() readonly { entry: %tmp = load i32* @dst-ip ; <i32> [#uses=3] %tmp1 = and i32 %tmp, -16777216 ; <i32> [#uses=1] %tmp2 = icmp eq i32 %tmp1, 167772160 ; <i1> [#uses=2]

I am testing vectorization on the following test case: float x[1024], y[1024]; void myloop1() { for (long int k = 0; k < 512; k++) { x[2*k] = x[2*k]+y[k]; } } Vectorization failed due to "unsafe dependent memory operation". I traced the LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp and found the reason is the NoWrapFlag for SCEVAddRecExpr is not set and consequently the

Hey, as some of you may know we're in process of experimenting with LLVM in Gallium3D (Mesa's new driver model), where LLVM would be used both in the software only (by just JIT executing shaders) and hardware (drivers will implement LLVM code-generators) cases. While the software only case is pretty straight forward I just realized I missed something in my initial evaluation. That

Hello all, I am instrumenting the code such that I write the results of some instructions to file. As you can see below, I am writing the results of add instruction to the file. The IR generated for writeToFile is also posted below. My problem is that it is writing to the file in format bytes and it is not human-readable. How do I make it write human readable strings to the file? define i32

In LegalizeDAG.cpp, truncating stores are custom-lowered in line 1314-1317: 1314 case TargetLowering::Custom: 1315 ReplaceNode(SDValue(Node, 0), 1316 TLI.LowerOperation(SDValue(Node, 0), DAG)); 1317 break; Is there a reason it doesn't check whether the SDValue returned from TargetLowering::LowerOperation is null before it replaces the

[+Arnold] > On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > [+CC Andy] > >> Can anyone familiar with ScalarRevolution tell me whether this is an >> expected behavior or a bug? > > Assuming you're talking about 2*k, this is a bug. ScalarEvolution > should be able to prove that {0,+,4} is <nsw> and

Wojciech, I've just commited a patch to llvm-gcc 4.2, which moves openmp lowering stuff to be run little bit earlier, so llvm-convert will catch its result. It looks now gcc atomic & sync builtins should be introduced to llvm as a remaining ingredient. Example program from Diego's paper now compiles to: @.str = internal constant [10 x i8] c"sum = %d\0A\00" ;

Hi, I want to clone a given function, and add an argument to it. I then want to add a call to that new function. I have a callInstruction CI, which I want to transform to call this new function, and to take a new argument. The code I added was as follows CI->getCalledFunction()->dump(); Function* DirectF = CloneFunction(CI->getCalledFunction());