similar to: [LLVMdev] Bug in LEA16r (X86InstrArithmetic.td) ??

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jun, > > On 24 June 2014 08:08, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > > def LEA16r : I<0x8D, MRMSrcMem, > > (outs GR16:$dst), (ins i32mem:$src), > > "lea{w}\t{$src|$dst}, {$dst|$src}", [], IIC_LEA_16>, > >

Hi, This patch fixes outs/ins of MOV16mr instruction of X86. Thanks. diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td b/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td index e9a0431..f5b2064 100644 --- a/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td +++ b/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td @@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@ let SchedRW = [WriteStore] in { def MOV8mr : I<0x88, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins i8mem :$dst, GR8 :$src),

Hi, I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, to save some time. But when I look into the X86InstrInfo.td, I have a very strong feeling that it is one of the most complex instruction set descriptions compared to other targets. I can imagine that this is due to the complexity of X86's

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. > Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, > to save some time. Ok. Note that the X86 backend is one of the most complex though, because it supports several subtargets and ABIs, which makes it more complex than some other targets. >

On Wednesday 10 July 2013 22:18:23 Jevin Sweval wrote: > http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~baker/devices/lxr/http/source/linux/arch/x86/include/ > asm/bitops.h#L68 > > Here is one example that I found. Are the inline assembly arguments > ambiguous in size? It would help us for sure to build the kernel and others. -- JS

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386. GNU as supports them fine. Unfortunately, LLVM does not > support them, and barfs with: > > error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix > > Fix this problem by disambiguating it

On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > >> All, >> >> TableGen likes to infer the MCID::UnmodeledSideEffects flag from an instruction's pattern. When an instruction doesn't have a pattern, it is assumed to have side effects. >

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch fixes outs/ins of MOV16mr instruction of X86. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td >

On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > All, > > TableGen likes to infer the MCID::UnmodeledSideEffects flag from an instruction's pattern. When an instruction doesn't have a pattern, it is assumed to have side effects. Hi Jakob, I don't understand what you're saying. Are you proposing that all properties (may load,

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for your answer! Chris Lattner wrote: >> 1. Why does X86 instruction set description provide different >> descriptions for the same instructions, which differ only in the size >> of operands? >> E.g. >> >> def MOV8rm : I<0x8A, MRMSrcMem, (ops GR8 :$dst, i8mem :$src), >> "mov{b} {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}",

Hello, I m working towards backend. Here i need to define vector load and stores for 64 i32 elements. so in x86instrinfo.td i wrote; def VMOV_256B_RM : I<0x6F, MRMSrcMem, (outs VR2048:$dst), (ins i32mem:$src), "vmov_256B_rm\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", [(set VR2048:$dst, (v64i32 (scalar_to_vector (loadi32 addr:$src))))],

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:

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

Hi, All, I want to add one intrinsic function for my particular backend. Let's say the intrinsic function is named "foo" which takes two i32 inputs and has one i32 output. First, I add this line "def int_foo : Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [llvm_i32_ty, llvm_i32_ty], [IntrReadArgMem]>;" in /include/llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td. Then, in my target/InstrInfo.td, I'm supposed

All, TableGen likes to infer the MCID::UnmodeledSideEffects flag from an instruction's pattern. When an instruction doesn't have a pattern, it is assumed to have side effects. It's possible to override this behavior by setting neverHasSideEffects = 1. It was originally the intention that most instructions have patterns, but that's not the way it worked out. It is often more

Hi Jacob, thank you for your reply. Your suggestion works! But instead of using the Pat<>, I am using def MOVE_ADDR : MYInst<(outs Int32Regs:$dst), (ins i32mem:$a), "move $dst, $a;", [(set Int32Regs:$dst, (Wrapper tglobaladdr:$a))]>; I don't quite understand what the semantics of Pat in general. Could you please explain what

Hi all, I am experiencing a problem with the representation of addresses in the x86_64 TableGen backend and was hoping someone can tell me if it is fixable. Any comments or hints in to send me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated. I am using LLVM version 3.8, commit 251286. I have an IR pass that stores metadata in the upper 32 bits of 64-bit pointers in order to implement

Hi, I'm trying to add the xadd instruction to the X86 back end. xadd r/m32, r32 exchanges r/m32 and r32, and loads the sum into r/m32. I'm interested in the case where the destination operand is a memory location. I've added the following entry to X86InstrInfo.td: def XADD32mr : I<0x87, MRMDestMem, (ops i32mem:$src1, R32:$src2), "xadd{l}

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

Hi Eli, Thanks, I’ll look into that then! Cheers, Taddeüs From: Friedman, Eli Sent: Wednesday, 2 August 2017 19:48 To: Taddeus; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Efficiently ignoring upper 32 pointer bits whendereferencing On 8/2/2017 9:03 AM, Taddeus via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi all, > > I am experiencing a problem with the representation of addresses in > the x86_64