similar to: lower 64 bits constant

Hi, All, I'm trying to build a customized backend and I need to lower the formal arguments like this: There are several specific registers just for storing formal arguments. And also there are several general purpose registers for computation. If there is an instruction which uses parameters, I should first use a move instruction, which moves the value to general purpose register. For

Hi, I define a customized node with customized type. The job of this customized node is to move a value from one register class to another class. I find that if there is no use of the destination register, this node will be deleted from SDAG. For some reasons, I want to keep this node. So I attach mayStore attribute to this node and I hope it will not be deleted. However, it does not work like I

Hi, All, Our team within the Software and Services Group at Intel is looking for compiler engineers to join us. Currently two positions are available, see attached links. If you are interested, you can apply online or email me at xiangyang.guo at intel.com. Thanks. --Xiangyang (Mark) Guo

Hi, Diego, Thanks for your quick reply. Inserting a copy instruction may not work here because I have a limitation of virtual register number. I need to assign registers with ssa form to registers without ssa form. I will look the source code you point out. Thanks Xiangyang On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015

There's been some recent noise on the mailing list about requiring -fno-rtti; http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-August/089010.html Could that be it? On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Xiangyang Guo via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, James and Philip, Thanks for your help. > > Based on your advice, I downloaded llvm-3.7. However, with this new

Thanks for your reply, escha, Yes, -loop-rorate makes it work. Regards, Xiangyang 2015-12-01 12:48 GMT-05:00 <escha at apple.com>: > > > On Dec 1, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Xiangyang Guo via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, All, > > > > Suppose I define one memory read only intrinsic function "foo" in >

Hi, When I define an intrinsic function with memory write permission, my assumption is that we can either attach [IntrReadWriteArgMem] or [] to the intrinsic function. Based on the comment of the source code , "IntrReadWriteArgMem - This intrinsic reads and writes only from memory that one of its arguments points to, but may access an unspecified amount." "If no property is set,

On 1 December 2015 at 12:33, Xiangyang Guo via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > if I have the following IR, LICM doesn't work again, even if I use > '-loop-rotate' firstly. In this IR, the return value of intrinsic function > "foo" is used by another function "func2" as parameter. However, for the > intrinsic function

Hi, Assume I define registers R0...R15 and two register classes RegA and RegB. RegA contains R0 to R7 while RegB contains R0 to R15. Then I check the machine instruction, it seems that in some cases, the %vreg0 belongs to RegB; in other cases %vreg1 belongs to RegA_RegB. Can you tell me how TableGen decides which is which? At first, I guess &verg0 will be assigned by R8 to R15 only so that

Hi, Assume I have the following code. The first four instructions in each BB does the same thing. So I think GVN() can remove the redundant code. However, after I apply GVN to my module by "Passes.add(createGVNPass())" and "Passes.run(*myModule)". It seems GVN does not remove the redundant instructions. Can anyone give me a hint what's going on here? Any hint is

Hi Xiangyang, The algorithm for loop unrolling was changed post-3.5 to do more what you'd expect. If you use 3.6 or 3.7 you'll likely get better results. Cheers, James On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 at 18:09 Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 08/20/2015 07:38 AM, Xiangyang Guo via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi, > > I want to use loop unrolling

I don't know if the toy program in chapter 4 of the tutorial implementing Kaleidoscope in llvm with C++ is part of your regression suite, but with the version of llvm I installed last weekend, it does not compile: hendrik at lovesong:~/dv/llvm/tut$ g++ -g toy.cpp `llvm-config --cppflags --ldflags --libs core jit native` -O3 -o toy toy.cpp: In member function ‘virtual llvm::Value*

Thanks for your reply, Philip. You are right, when I use LLVM-3.8, the 'argmemonly' shows up. Previously, I use LLVM-3.7. I think idempotent is what I want. Can you tell me how to add idempotent attribute to the function? Thanks. Regards, Xiangyang 2016-03-24 14:30 GMT-07:00 Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>: > > > On 03/24/2016 12:45 PM, Xiangyang Guo via

Hola LLVMers, I'm getting a crash when using ConstantFP::get. I can repro it by adding one line to the Fibonacci example program: int main(int argc, char **argv) { int n = argc > 1 ? atol(argv[1]) : 24; // Create some module to put our function into it. Module *M = new Module("test"); // We are about to create the "fib" function: Function

It's in debug. I'm having a look at the assembler it's producing right now and it's definitely a little odd for what should be a simple assignment in zeroSignificand. ________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Dale Johannesen Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:39 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing

Hi, I noticed that ConstantFP::get automatically returns the appropriately types Constant depending on the LLVM type passed in (i.e. if called with a vector, it returns a splat vector with the given constant). Is there any simple way to do the inverse of this function? i.e., given a llvm::Value, check whether it is either a scalar of the given constant value or a splat vector with the given

Hi, I'm using LLVM-3.8 (current SVN version) to optimize my code. After loop unrolling, I find there is 'undef' in the IR. For example, "*%.lcssa21.unr = phi double [ undef, %.lr.ph9 ], [ %13, %7 ]*". I have two questions: (1) Why this 'undef' is generated? Because before 'loop unrolling', there is no such 'undef'. (2) How LLVM backend deals with

Hi, All, Suppose I define one memory read only intrinsic function "foo" in Intrinsics.td like this def int_foo : Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [llvm_i32_ty, llvm_i32_ty], [IntrReadMem]>; Suppose I have the following IR, which means the intrinsic function "foo" is called 10 times in a loop. Since the parameters of function "foo" are invariant and the function

On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Chuck Rose III wrote: > Hola LLVMers, > > > > I’m getting a crash when using ConstantFP::get. > > > > I can repro it by adding one line to the Fibonacci example program: > > > > int main(int argc, char **argv) { > > int n = argc > 1 ? atol(argv[1]) : 24; > > > > // Create some module to put our function

Hi, I just tried llvm-3.8 (LLVM SVN Repository). With this version, -fno-rtti can help me to compile my code and -irce can help me to do a better job for loop unrolling. However, I still have one question. If I use Clang to compile a piece of c++ code to .bc and then use 'opt -loop-rotate -loop-unroll -irce', I can get what I want. I mean, there is no conditional branch at the end of each