similar to: zero_reg

Hi, That's what the DecoderMethod is for. Similarly ParserMatchClass for the asm parser and PrintMethod for the asm printer: def CondCodeOperand : AsmOperandClass { let Name = "CondCode"; } def pred : PredicateOperand<OtherVT, (ops i32imm, i32imm), (ops (i32 14), (i32 zero_reg))> { let PrintMethod = "printPredicateOperand";

Hello James, that was also what I've planned to do but just wasn't sure. Thanks for that. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > You can't nest operands like that - it must be a flattened list. So: > > def *Xpred* : PredicateOperand<OtherVT, (ops *i32imm, i32imm*, i32imm), > (ops (i32 14), (i32

Hi All, In ARMInstFormats.td predicate is defined this way: *def pred : PredicateOperand<OtherVT, (ops i32imm, i32imm),* *(ops (i32 14), (i32 zero_reg))> {...}* I use the same definition in my code. But I have another version of predicate which is exactly the same but it is a condition code plus a quantifier! (e.g. Xpred = (pred + i32imm)). I was wondering how we can define a sub sub

Hi Daniel, Thanks for replying; I was hoping to get in touch with you on this issue. I had a look at how SelectionIDAG does it when generating the matcher table, and it does consider the implicit defs as additional output. Here is the match table generated for the pattern: /* 0*/ OPC_CheckOpcode, TARGET_VAL(ISD::SIGN_EXTEND), /* 3*/ OPC_MoveChild0, /* 4*/ OPC_CheckOpcode,

All, ARM LLVM afficianados: I'm trying to understand how LiveVariables computes liveness for CPSR. In particular, I would like to tell whether a particular instruction is a use/kill/def for doing some within block liveness checking I need. Thanks in advance, David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Thank you for your help Tom you are totally right with the registers but the command you suggest also doesn't work. After some research I found the following thread on the mailing list: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-February/110086.html With your help and the information about the condition codes I was able to resolve the error:         BuildMI(BB, BB.end(), DL,

Hello, Im back trying to finish my backend to a simple RISC cpu SABRE now that most of the tedious process of examining undergraduate students is out of the way. I have managed to describe the registers and the instructions in the architecture and have added support for 32 bit immediates (thanks to Christopher Lamb) as the instruction set only supports 17 bit immediates directly. Could

Gene Cumm said on Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 05:58:59AM -0400: >> Ok, I tried to modify mk/devel.mk to put: >> GCCWARN += -Wno-clobbered -DCORE_DEBUG=1 -DDEBUG_MALLOC -DDEBUG_THREAD >> And removing the -DDYNAMIC_DEBUG but now syslinux doesn't want to build: > >MALLOC and THREAD are two debugs you probably don't want. Ok I can drop them, but that doesn't change the

Hi, I have added Branch condition BGEID like below… *def : Pat<(brcond (setcc (i32 GR32:$L), (i32 GR32:$R), SETGE), bb:$T),* * (BGEID (CMP GR32:$L, GR32:$R), bb:$T)>;* *def BGEID : TBT<0b101110, (outs), (ins GR32:$ra, brtarget:$offset), "bgeid\t$ra,$offset", [], IIC_BRc> {* * let rd = 0b10101;* *}* *def brtarget : Operand<OtherVT>* *{*

It seems to me that LLVM sub-register is not for the following hardware architecture. All instructions of a hardware are vector instructions. All registers contains 4 32-bit FP sub-registers. They are called r0.x, r0.y, r0.z, r0.w. Most instructions write more than one elements in this way: mul r0.xyw, r1, r2 add r0.z, r3, r4 sub r5, r0, r1 Notice that the four elements of r0 are written

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Bruno Cornec via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > Bruno Cornec via Syslinux said on Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 01:45:22AM +0100: >> >> Is there a way to increase the debug level of syslinux.efi in order to >> check what it tries to do and diagnose more precisely what happens ? > > > Ok, I tried to modify mk/devel.mk to put:

On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Alex wrote: > It seems to me that LLVM sub-register is not for the following > hardware architecture. > > All instructions of a hardware are vector instructions. All > registers contains > 4 32-bit FP sub-registers. They are called r0.x, r0.y, r0.z, r0.w. > > Most instructions write more than one elements in this way: > > mul

Cool, that worked. New patch attached... Cheers, Gary Evan Cheng wrote: > Just cast both values to const TargetRegisterClass*. > > Evan > > On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:36 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > > Evan Cheng wrote: > > > How about? > > > > > > const TargetRegisterClass *RC = is64Bit ? &PPC:GPRCRegClass : > > > &PPC:G8RCRegClass; >

PPCTargetLowering::EmitInstrWithCustomInserter has a reference to the current MachineFunction for other purposes. Can you use MachineFunction::getRegInfo instead? Dan On Jul 8, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Gary Benson wrote: > Would it be acceptable to change MachineInstr::getRegInfo from private > to public so I can use it from > PPCTargetLowering::EmitInstrWithCustomInserter? > >

Hi Evan, Evan Cheng wrote: > This does not patch cleanly for me (PPCISelLowering.cpp). Can you > prepare a updated patch? This should work, though I won't have access to my test box now until next Thursday so no guarantees :) Cheers, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/ -------------- next part -------------- Index: lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelLowering.h

Hi Gary, This does not patch cleanly for me (PPCISelLowering.cpp). Can you prepare a updated patch? Thanks, Evan On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Cool, that worked. New patch attached... > > Cheers, > Gary > > Evan Cheng wrote: >> Just cast both values to const TargetRegisterClass*. >> >> Evan >> >> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:36

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Dan Gohman wrote: > LLVM knows what all the types of the intrinsic functions are; I thought, > why are users (including llvm-gcc...) required to duplicate all this > information in order to use them? I mean in order to call > getOrInsertFunction to get declarations for them. That is an excellent question! :) In the bad old days, we used to allow intrinsics

Just cast both values to const TargetRegisterClass*. Evan On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:36 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Evan Cheng wrote: >> How about? >> >> const TargetRegisterClass *RC = is64Bit ? &PPC:GPRCRegClass : >> &PPC:G8RCRegClass; >> unsigned TmpReg = RegInfo.createVirtualRegister(RC); > > I tried something like that yesterday: > > const

Evan Cheng wrote: > How about? > > const TargetRegisterClass *RC = is64Bit ? &PPC:GPRCRegClass : > &PPC:G8RCRegClass; > unsigned TmpReg = RegInfo.createVirtualRegister(RC); I tried something like that yesterday: const TargetRegisterClass *RC = is64bit ? &PPC::GPRCRegClass : &PPC::G8RCRegClass; but I kept getting this error no matter how I arranged it:

You need to insert new basic blocks and update CFG to accomplish this. There is a hackish way to do this right now. Add a pseudo instruction to represent this operation and mark it usesCustomDAGSchedInserter. This means the intrinsic is mapped to a single (pseudo) node. But it is then expanded into instructions that can span multiple basic blocks. See