similar to: a bundle with one instruction

I'm trying to figure out how Hexagon (I'm using it as an example for my own VLIW) is handling bundles with 1 instruction, but I don't quite get it. Here is the code that I have for a endPacket // endPacket - End the current packet, bundle packet instructions and reset // DFA state. void VLIWPacketizerList::endPacket(MachineBasicBlock *MBB,

> No. Bundles with single instructions are not allowed, but bundles can be > mixed with instructions that are not bundled. > > -Krzysztof > > -- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted > by The Linux Foundation > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >

Sure I will split it and put it in two patches. Give me few hours. I need to test those patches. Sirish On 4/19/2012 8:40 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:18:05PM -0500, Sirish Pande wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here's a patch for Hexagon Packetizer for review. This patch does >> not yield any warnings. >> > Would it be possible to split this

You can have > > BUNDLE // 2 instructions in a bundle > instruction1 // > instruction2 // > instruction3 // single, non-bundled instruction > BUNDLE // another bundle with 2 instructions > instruction4 // > instruction5 // > > instruction3 is not bundled with anything, and it's between two other > bundles---that's what I

> > No problem. At some point the machine instructions represented by a class > "MachineInstr" are transformed into a representation using class "MCInst". > This is the MC level I'm talking about. It's the representation that the > llvm-mc uses. > > Do you mind pointing out where in the code this is happening? -- Rail Shafigulin Software

My target has an instruction that adds up all elements in the vector and stores the result in a register. I'm trying to implement it in my compiler but I'm not sure even where to start. I did look at other targets, but they don't seem to have anything like it ( I could be wrong. My experience with LLVM is limited, so if I missed it, I'd appreciate if someone could point it out ).

Hi Rail, Below 2 revisions might be of your interest which Detect SAD patterns and emit psadbw instructions on X86.: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14840 http://reviews.llvm.org/D14897 Intrinsics related to absdiff revisons : http://reviews.llvm.org/D10867 http://reviews.llvm.org/D11678 Hope this helps. Regards, Suyog On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:20 AM, Rail Shafigulin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Dylan McKay <dylanmckay34 at gmail.com> wrote: > Try visualising the DAG like this. > > ``` > ---- GPR:$rA > / > set GPR:$rd ---- add > \ > ---- GPR:$rB > ``` > > Each instruction forms a DAG with its operands being subnodes. > >

> On Feb 1, 2016, at 16:53, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com <mailto:arsenm2 at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On Jan 29, 2016, at 13:25, Rail Shafigulin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > >

> why in order to add this particular instruction (sum elements in a vector) I need to add an insrinsic? Adding intrinsic is not the only way, it is one of the way and user WILL-NOT be required to invoke It specifically. Currently LLVM does not have any instruction to directly represent “sum of elements in a vector” and generate your particular instruction.However, you can do it without

Hi Shahid. Do you mind providing a concrete example of X86 code where an intrinsic was added (preferrable with filenames and line numbers)? I'm having difficulty tracking down the steps you provided. Any help is appreciated. On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Shahid, Asghar-ahmad < Asghar-ahmad.Shahid at amd.com> wrote: > Hi Rail, > > > > We had done this for generation

Is there a way to enable/disable target features through clang? I found this, https://github.com/avr-llvm/llvm/issues/9, but this seems to be talking about llc -mattr=+feature1,-feature2... Is there something equivalent for clang? -- Rail Shafigulin Software Engineer Esencia Technologies -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

This would be really cool. We have several instructions that perform horizontal vector operations, and have to use built-ins to select them as there is no easy way of expressing them in a TD file. Some like SUM for a ‘v4i32’ are easy enough to express with a pattern fragment, SUM ‘v8i16’ takes TableGen a long time to compute, but SUM ‘v16i8’ resulted in TableGen disappearing into itself for

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Dylan McKay <dylanmckay34 at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Try visualising the DAG like this. >> >> ``` >> ---- GPR:$rA >> / >> set GPR:$rd ---- add >>

Hi Rail, We used a very simple pattern expansion (actually, not a pattern fragment). For example, for AND, ADD (horizontal sum), OR and XOR of 4 elements we use something like the following TableGen structure: class HORIZ_Op4<SDNode opc, RegisterClass regVT, ValueType rt, ValueType vt, string asmstr> : SHAVE_Instr<(outs regVT:$dst), (ins VRF128:$src),

I'm starting to think we should directly implement horizontal operations on vector types. My suspicion is that coming up with a nice model for this would help us a lot with things like: - Idiom recognition of reduction patterns that use horizontal arithmetic - Ability to use horizontal operations in SLPVectorizer - Significantly easier cost modeling of vectorizing loops with reductions in

I'm trying to enable/disable a target feature through clang. Here is how my target looks like // Esencia subtarget features //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// def FeatureMul : SubtargetFeature<"mul", "HasMul", "true", "Enable hardware multiplier">; def FeatureDiv

I'm a little confused. Here is why. I was able to add a vector add instruction to my target without using any intrinsics and without adding any new instructions to LLVM. So here is my question: how come I managed to add a new vector instruction without adding an intrinsic and why in order to add this particular instruction (sum elements in a vector) I need to add an insrinsic? Another

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 1:47 PM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> >> wrote: >> >> Yes this IR does not build or shuffle any vector. Try to write a function

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 1:47 PM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> wrote: > > Yes this IR does not build or shuffle any vector. Try to write a function that takes 8 ints and a pointer to a <4xi32>, builds two vectors with the 8 ints, > > This might sound like a dumb question, but how does one build a vector of ints out of regular ints in IR? See: