similar to: [LLVMdev] Example for usage of LLVM/Clang/libclc

Ok, as I said, the most precise way to figure out what's wrong is to emit LLVM IR first (use clang -emit-llvm ...) and check out how it differs from working examples, for instance, nvptx regression tests. ----- Original message ----- > I'm building this with llvm-c, and accessing these intrinsics via calling > the intrinsic as if it were a function. > > class F_SREG<string

Hi Timothy, I'm not sure what you mean by this working for other intrinsics, but in this case, I think you want the intrinsic name llvm.nvvm.read.ptx.sreg.tid.x. For me, this looks like: %x = call i32 @llvm.nvvm.read.ptx.sreg.tid.x() Pete On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldridge at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm building this with llvm-c, and accessing these

The identifier INT_PTX_SREG_TID_X is the name of an instruction as the back-end sees it, and has very little to do with the name you should use in your IR. Your best bet is to look at the include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsNVVM.td file and see the definitions for each intrinsic. Then, the name mapping is just: int_foo_bar -> llvm.foo.bar() int_ prefix becomes llvm., and all underscores turn into

I'm building this with llvm-c, and accessing these intrinsics via calling the intrinsic as if it were a function. class F_SREG<string OpStr, NVPTXRegClass regclassOut, Intrinsic IntOp> : NVPTXInst<(outs regclassOut:$dst), (ins), OpStr, [(set regclassOut:$dst, (IntOp))]>; def INT_PTX_SREG_TID_X : F_SREG<"mov.u32 \t$dst, %tid.x;",

I've written a compiler that outputs PTX code, the result seems fairly reasonable, but I'm not sure the intrinsics are getting compiled correctly. In addition, when I try load the module using CUDA, I get an error: CUDA_ERROR_NO_BINARY_FOR_GPU. I'm running this on a 2012 MBP with a 640M GPU. PTX Code (for a mandelbrot calculation): // // Generated by LLVM NVPTX Back-End //

Timothy, Those calls to compute grid intrinsics are definitely wrong. In ptx code they should end up into reading special registers, rather than function calls. Try to take some working example and figure out the LLVM IR differences between it and the result of your compiler. - D. ----- Original message ----- > I've written a compiler that outputs PTX code, the result seems fairly >

It's not clear what is actually wrong from your original message, I think you need to give some more information as to what you are doing: Example source, what target GPU, compiler error messages or other evidence of "it's wrong" (llvm IR, disassembly, etc) ... -- Mats On 8 April 2016 at 09:55, Liu Xin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I built it

Hi, > which works but it produces LLVM IR code for all OpenCL intrinsics > implemented by libclc along with the kernel I am interested in, is their a > possibility to avoid this ? and only produce the llvm code for the kernel > required ? Mark all functions apart from the kernel entry points with the internal attribute and then run global dead code elimination (it should remove most

Hi Mr. Liu, Thanks for your quick reply. I compiled the code with the libclc_trunk and linked the bitcode file under $LIBCLC_DIR/built_libs/tahiti-amdgcn--.bc. After looking into the libclc, it is currently using the new workitem intrinsics (commit ba9858caa1e927a6fcc601e3466faa693835db5e). In the linked bitcode ($LIBCLC_DIR/built_libs/tahiti-amdgcn--.bc), it has the following code segment,

Dear Developers, I compiled a OpenCL kernel before (on Nov. last year) like __kernel void g(__global float* array) { array[get_global_id(0)] = 1; } with libclc, which would originally use the instrinsics like llvm.r600.read.local.size.x(). I executed the generated object file with one version of the hsa-runtime [1] provided by Mr. Stellard, when there was more than one workgroup, the output

In the following code I have created the posterior density for a Bayesian survival model with four parameters. However, when I try to use the adapt function to perform integration in four dimensions (on my old version of R I get an error message saying that I have applied a non-function, although the function does work when I type kernel2(param0, theta0), or on the newer version of R the computer

Hi Justin, I download llvm-ptx-samples [1] and try to build them. I found it seems lack of a complete document on how to build them with LLVM/Clang/libclc. Do you think it's a good idea to put a complete document/tutorial in _one_ place? Currently, there are your website [2], LLVM [3], Clang and libclc websites [5] over there. I feel people might get lost among those websites. ;-) Here

Hi all, According to the SPIR 2.0 spec[1], the name of OpenCL builtins are mangled. However, when I compile OpenCl code with Clang 3.9 with the "spir64-unknown-unknown" target, Clang generates IR without mangling the builtins, e.g. for: __kernel void input_zip_int(__global int *in0) { *in0 = get_global_id(0); } clang generates: define spir_kernel void @input_zip_int(i32

Thanks a lot. On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com> wrote: > If you use the default header file under clang/lib/Headers/opencl-c.h, > get_global_id will be mangled. > > > > If you want to declare get_global_id in your own header, add > __attribute__((overloadable)), then it will be mangled. > > > > Sam > > > >

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:17 PM, 陳韋任 <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > Hi Justin, > > I download llvm-ptx-samples [1] and try to build them. I found it seems > lack > of a complete document on how to build them with LLVM/Clang/libclc. Do you > think > it's a good idea to put a complete document/tutorial in _one_ place? > Currently, > there are your

+ Alexey Anastasia According to SPIR spec v1.2 s2.10.3 2.10.3 The printf function The printf function is supported, and is mangled according to its prototype as follows: int printf(constant char * restrict fmt, ... ) Note that the ellipsis formal argument (...) is mangled to argument type specifier z It seems printf should be mangled. Alexey/Anastasia, What do you think? Thanks. Sam From:

I don't see any problem mangling it to be honest even though there seems to be only one prototype anyways. We could add restrict in as well. Cheers, Anastasia ________________________________ From: Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> Sent: 17 September 2016 05:32:54 To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam) Cc: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev; Bader, Alexey (alexey.bader at intel.com); Anastasia

Hi Tom, Thanks for taking the time to answer this. On 11-01-16 18:10, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:07:14PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> After a few distractions I'm back to work on the llvm tgsi backend. I've >> added clang integration and I can now compile a simple opencl program >> to something which sort of looks like

Hi, Looks like "{" and "}" are lost when trying to use the combination of Clang and NVPTX, which may result into clash of definitions of the function-scope and asm-scope. Here is an example: > cat test.cu __attribute__((device)) __attribute__((nv_linkonce_odr)) __inline__ int __any(int a) { int result; asm __volatile__ ("{ \n\t" ".reg .pred

--- celt/arch.h | 5 +++++ silk/macros.h | 4 +--- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/celt/arch.h b/celt/arch.h index 9f74ddd..670527b 100644 --- a/celt/arch.h +++ b/celt/arch.h @@ -78,6 +78,11 @@ static OPUS_INLINE void _celt_fatal(const char *str, const char *file, int line) #define UADD32(a,b) ((a)+(b)) #define USUB32(a,b) ((a)-(b)) +/* Set this if opus_int64