similar to: [LLVMdev] ARMv4T Copy Lowering

I start my porting for picoblaze,the soft cpu for fpga ,which is designed by XILINX from MSP430 porting . After some day's work , somethinig looks good , for it can generate for some simple C program: eg : int f1(int a) { return a+1; } but it failed with this : char f() { char a; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++;

This code or subtle variations of it appears in multiple targets. It tries to convert from a register to a register class using getRegClass, but getRegClass is really supposed to take a register class enum value and get the register class object for it. It doesn't convert a register to a class. In fact there's not always a single or canonical class for a given register. What is the right

Why are you reverting patches for any area that you have no authorization for ? No build was broken. This patch is fine. I am authorized to check in to the Mips area and Daniel is the maintainer for that area. On 06/08/2014 02:13 AM, Alp Toker wrote: > Author: alp > Date: Sun Jun 8 04:13:42 2014 > New Revision: 210424 > > URL:

Hi, The PHI elimination pass calls the function copyRegToReg for copy placement and then later tries to setkill to the temporary virtual register used in copy placement. For this setkill action it looks only in one instruction (last instruction for copyRegToReg) for virtual register with no use. My target has only one register and I can't do copyRegToReg in one instruction only. So I

Hello, find enclosed a first patch for adding tail call optimizations for thumb1 targets. I assume that this list is the right place for publishing patches for review? Since this is my first proposal for LLVM, I'd very much appreciate your feedback. What the patch is meant to do: For Tail calls identified during DAG generation, the target address will be loaded into a register by use

Hi All. I'm writing storeRegToStackSlot and loadFromStackSlot function for my Target. This Target can store/load one byte (not all word) from FrameIndex. If I need to store 16 bit register I will must to split it to two instruction like this: BuildMI(MBB, MI, dl, get(Z80::LD8xmr)) .addFrameIndex(FrameIndex).addImm(0) .addReg(SrcReg, 0, Z80::subreg_lo); BuildMI(MBB, MI, dl,

Hi Dmitriy, As you've seen our current spill code assumes that spill/reloads are single instructions. I think the best way to work around this is to introduce load/store pseudo-instructions and expand these after register allocation. Cheers, Lang. On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Dmitriy Limonov <earl at excluzive.ws> wrote: > Hi All. > > I'm writing

Hi Lang. Thank you. I added pseudo-instructions for spill/reloads and expanded it in expandPostRAPseudo. Regards, Dmitriy. 04.03.2013 8:24, Lang Hames wrote: > Hi Dmitriy, > > As you've seen our current spill code assumes that spill/reloads are > single instructions. I think the best way to work around this is to > introduce load/store pseudo-instructions and expand these

Hi, Paul Curtis wrote: > If you read the Arm Architecture document for ARMv5, it states for MUL: > > "Operand restriction: Specifying the same register for <Rd> and <Rm> was > previously described as producing UNPREDICTABLE results. There is no > restriction in ARMv6, and it is believed all relevant ARMv4 and ARMv5 > implementations do not require this

Hi, > I am using a cross compiler to compiler for the arm5 architecture. For this > architecture it is not allowed that a destination register is also used as source > register. > In 2007 a patch was discussed at the mailing list, however my compiler still is > producing this result. Does anyone know if this patch is actually applied? > > * I use the following arguments:

Hi, I am using a cross compiler to compiler for the arm5 architecture. For this architecture it is not allowed that a destination register is also used as source register. In 2007 a patch was discussed at the mailing list, however my compiler still is producing this result. Does anyone know if this patch is actually applied? * I use the following arguments: llvm-gcc -mfpu=vfp -mlittle-endian

Hi, We're having an issue with TailDuplication in our out-of-tree target and it's this PHI-node that seems to be the cause of the trouble: %vreg2<def> = PHI %vreg0, <BB#2>, %vreg1, <BB#3>; rN:%vreg2 aNlh_0_7:%vreg0 aNlh_rN:%vreg1 Note that the defined %vreg2 has register class "rN" while the read %vreg0 has register class "aNlh_0_7".

Why do these two guys take a pointer to the basic block, whereas all other BuildMI functions take a reference? They are not checking for null or anything and I didn't see any potential declaration conflicts. Am I missing something? Is there a reason for this? inline MachineInstrBuilder BuildMI(MachineBasicBlock *BB, DebugLoc DL,

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

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Ok, I'm now trying to write instruction selector and have some questions > > 1. The MachineInstrBuilder has methods to add register operand and immediate > operand. However, what would be really nice is a method to add Value*. So, I > would write: > > BuildMI(*BB, NM::add, 1).add(I.getOperand(0), I.getOperand(1)); > >

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 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);

I'm having trouble with virtual registers/register allocation in my back-end. Basically the FastRegAlloc pass is generating calls to storeToStackSlot and loadFromStackSlot, in which we build new machine instructions, which are then _not_ processed by the reg allocator. I understand that BuildMI is changing the list of MachInst. that the allocator is iterating over, but we need to have a new

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sat, 13 May 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> in LLVM CVS the afore-mentioned function has 'const TargetRegisterClass*' >> parameter, that is not documented. >> >> Can somebody explain what does it mean? > > Basically, it gives the target more information about the spill. In > particular, it specifies the register class to use

Only implemented for glsl->tgsi. Other converters just set precise to 0. Signed-off-by: Karol Herbst <karolherbst at gmail.com> --- src/gallium/auxiliary/tgsi/tgsi_build.c | 3 +++ src/gallium/auxiliary/tgsi/tgsi_ureg.c | 14 +++++++--- src/gallium/auxiliary/tgsi/tgsi_ureg.h | 20 +++++++++++--- src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_simple_shaders.c | 2 +-