similar to: [RFC] Lanai backend

The ISA & encoding is documented in the comments and diagrams of lib/Target/Lanai/LanaiInstrFormats.td. If that makes sense I'll add a link to this tablegen in docs/CompilerWriterInfo.rst. Thanks, Jacques On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Do you have a psABI document? Or an ISA reference? Or an encoding > reference? > > I

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Jacques Pienaar via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > We would like to contribute a new backend for the Lanai processor > (derived from the processor described in [1]). > >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 10:59:58 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Lanai backend > > > Hi Sean > > > I think you’ve

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:58 AM Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jacques Pienaar via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 11:40:21 AM > > Subject: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Lanai backend > > > Hi all, >

Do you MC support? Cheers, Rafael On Feb 9, 2016 1:12 PM, "Jacques Pienaar via llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:58 AM Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>>

You've raised an important point here Pete, and while I disagree pretty strongly with it (regardless of whether Lanai makes sense or not), I'm glad that you've surfaced it where we can clearly look at the issue. The idea of "it really should have users outside of just the people who have access to the HW" I think is deeply problematic for the project as a whole. Where does

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > You've raised an important point here Pete, and while I disagree pretty > strongly with it (regardless of whether Lanai makes sense or not), I'm glad > that you've

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Renato >> On Jul 19, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> A few basic rules to get accepted are if: >> * the target exists and can be easily purchased / emulated

Dear LLVM community, We wanted to discuss the possibility of moving the Lanai backend from an experimental status to a regular backend. During the initial upstreaming of the Lanai backend (llvm-dev thread "[RFC] Lanai backend", http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-February/095118.html) it was discussed that we could move out of experimental status after a few months of

On 26 July 2016 at 00:08, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It is unquestionably easier for a contributor to land their backend in-tree > than to maintain it out-of-tree. This is because landing it in tree shifts > the maintenance burden from the *contributor* to the *community*. If there > is low value to the community, then this is a "bad

On 7/25/2016 1:46 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > And perhaps there is a spec for AMDGPU or Hexagon, but even when I've > asked developers on those backends about problems, they've not pointed > be at the published ISA documentation. The Hexagon ISA is now available at https://developer.qualcomm.com/software/hexagon-dsp-sdk/tools It's the "Programmer's

On 02/09/2016 08:59 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Sean > > I think you’ve summed it up really well here. > > Personally I don’t think we should accept backends for which there is > no way to run the code. The burden (however small) on the community > to having an in-tree backend they can’t use is too high IMO. > > As you point out ‘no way to run the code’

On 7/19/2016 6:12 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > > I don't see why not. LGTM. Same here. -Krzysztof -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

Hey, I'm playing around with a backend with no callee saved registers and noticed more spilling than seems needed. I tried digging into the spilling code but with limited success. I also tried removing all the callee saved registers in the X86 backend and saw the same effect (basically making CSRs equal to CSR_NoRegs). So I seem to be misunderstanding something or missing something simple,

On 19 July 2016 at 17:04, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Presumably if my out-of-tree backend was to be pushed to LLVM, it too would be considered experimental. Yes. Though, not all out-of-tree back-ends end up upstream for different reasons. A few basic rules to get accepted are if: * the target exists and can be easily purchased / emulated

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Rafael Espíndola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 7:50:33 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Lanai backend > > On 10 February 2016 at 13:42,

> Yes, I think this is a reasonable point. The cheapest SystemZ system is somewhere around $75K, so widespread availability isn’t really a relevant criteria for accepting that. And SystemZ is hopefully a good comparison in that is a new and well isolated backend. Ever since it went in I can remember only ever discussing 1 or 2 patches, and the last case pushed me to improving common code

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:42 AM Renato Golin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 19 July 2016 at 17:04, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > Presumably if my out-of-tree backend

Hi Chandler, I think you have good points. Maybe we could make some hard-lined rules and others as "nice-to-have". The biggest problem is the community behind it, outside of LLVM. If the community is strong, and they care about LLVM support, than we can keep their back-ends in tree and not have to worry about them. IIRC, our *only* rule for a long time has been "keep up or give

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 10 February 2016 at 06:44, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> But I also see another option, which someone else mentioned up-thread: >> simply make only the regression tests be supported. Without a regression >> test case that