similar to: [LLVMdev] Embedding cpu and feature strings into IR and enabling switching subtarget on a per function basis

To continue the discussion I started last year (see the link below) on embedding command-line options in bitcode, I came up with a plan to improve the way the backend changes UnsafeFPMath on a per-function basis. The code in trunk currently resets TargetOptions::UnsafeFPMath at the beginning of SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction to enable compiling one function with “unsafe-fp-math=true” and

Hi all, As of r232885 I've removed the argument-less TargetMachine::getSubtarget and TargetMachine::getSubtargetImpl. For the targets that aren't completely independent of this I've gone ahead and left a non-virtual version of the function in the target specific TargetMachine. What this means in practice is that those targets can only use a bare getSubtarget call in their target

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed Dec 03 2014 at 11:39:23 AM Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 4:31:43 PM Akira Hatanaka

Hi, I found some different discrepancy on how Subtarget is created between some arch specific TargetMachine constructor. For example, for BPF/Lanai: BPFTargetMachine::BPFTargetMachine(const Target &T, const Triple &TT, StringRef CPU, StringRef FS, const TargetOptions &Options,

Hi All, I've gotten a few notes over the last few months and also given some of the recent changes to various backends to "update" the default tunings for a generic processor it made me think again about adding support for tuning to a processor rather than generating processor specific code - hence, mtune. I hope this is rather uncontroversial, but happy to discuss at length if

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > IMHO the right way to handle target function attributes is to > re-initialize the target machine and TTI for every function (if the > attributes changed). Do you have another solution in mind ? I don't really understand this. TargetMachine and TTI may be quite expensive to initialize. Doing so for

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 4:31:43 PM Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 4:22:15 PM Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com>

Updated patch is attached. Note this is just a work-in-progress patch and I plan to address the feedback comments later if this patch is in the right direction. This is how the command line options are parsed and used by the backend passes: 1. Tools such as clang and llc call cl::ParseCommandLineOptions. Any of the options that should be written to the bitcode as function or module attributes

I've been trying to understand the current state of subtargets and subtarget features in LLVM. It seems like the presence of "target-cpu" and "target-features" attributes on IR functions are currently intended to take precedence over the module-level (TargetMachine) versions. See X86TargetMachine::getSubtargetImpl for an example of this. However, this feels like it is

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 4:22:15 PM Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for your feedback, Eric. >> >> I still think we may be talking past each other a little bit, but rather >> than >> > > Might be, sorry if so :( > > >> delving

Hi Chris, Chris Lattner wrote: >> 2) Line 369 of PPCInstrInfo.td, we declare the non-callee saved registers. >> However, Linux and Darwin do not have the same set >> of non-callee saved registers. I don't know how to make the if(isDarwin) test >> in here >> > > Take a look at ARM/ARMRegisterInfo.td for an example of this I tried to define Defs just

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> > To: "Akira Hatanaka" <ahatanak at gmail.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 2:54:48 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Enable changing UnsafeFPMath on a per-function basis > > > > Whatever

Thanks for your feedback, Eric. I still think we may be talking past each other a little bit, but rather than delving further into the details right now, I’ve suggested to Akira that he look into how we should handle other kinds of options. I’m hoping that as we look at more of them, we will gain some insight into the approach that we want to take here. This patch really only deals with the easy

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello llvm-dev, > > > > Following up on the "CodeGen Context" discussion that was started, > attached is patch which implements a pretty minimal skeleton of a CGContext > implementation.

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > So my general concern here is that lots of command line options that don't > need to be or shouldn't be IR level constructs become oddly named string > options. It's bad enough that we're doing that with the target cpu and > target feature string let alone the rest of it. > >

Hello, I'm implementing a port of LLVM for PowerPC VLE. It's a compressed instruction set similar to mips16 and ARM Thumb. Instruction encoding (VLE/non-vle) is selected for a given memory region by an attribute in a memory area descriptor. Targets supporting this that I know of are all bare-metal (so powerpc-none-elf). I'm trying to implement ELF support right now. VLE ELF files

> On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed Nov 19 2014 at 4:39:42 PM Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com <mailto:ahatanak at gmail.com>> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>> wrote: > So my general concern here is

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 4:17 AM, 陳韋任 <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > Hi, Justin > > Thansk, but I have a little concern though. I saw Chiou mentioned the > compatibility issue of PTX on the mailing list. > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-March/038654.html > > In my PTX.td patch, > > def FeaturePTX23 : SubtargetFeature<"ptx23",

Hi, Justin Thansk, but I have a little concern though. I saw Chiou mentioned the compatibility issue of PTX on the mailing list. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-March/038654.html In my PTX.td patch, def FeaturePTX23 : SubtargetFeature<"ptx23", "PTXVersion", PTX_VERSION_2_3", "Use PTX Language Version

On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello llvm-dev, > > Following up on the "CodeGen Context" discussion that was started, attached is patch which implements a pretty minimal skeleton of a CGContext implementation. The goal is to allow the newly added subtarget attributes on functions to be made available to codegen so that codegen