similar to: Failure to match a DAG after a minor pattern change in a custom Target

On 1/15/2016 2:57 PM, Phil Tomson wrote: > > > I see the following in my SelectCode (in XSTGGenDGISel.inc): > > > /*2235*/ OPC_SwitchOpcode /*2 cases */, 27, > TARGET_VAL(XSTGISD::ADDR_NORMAL),// ->2266 > /*2239*/ OPC_RecordChild0, // #1 = $addr > /*2240*/ OPC_MoveChild, 0, > /*2242*/ OPC_CheckOpcode,

Hello. I come back to this older thread. Again, because of i64immSExt32 I receive TableGen error "Could not infer all types in, pattern!" (exact details written below). So far I'm not able to generate selection code with TableGen for the ADD_r* instructions, etc: def i64immSExt32 : PatLeaf<(imm), [{return

On 1/15/2016 1:08 PM, Phil Tomson wrote: > > Ah, I see, the defm is a multi-class so I needed to change it to: > > def: Pat<(load (XSTGADDR_NORMAL tglobaladdr:$addr)), > (LOADI64_RI tglobaladdr:$addr, 0)>; > // Match load from a relocatable address to a load with GRP: > def: Pat<(load (XSTGADDR_USE_GRP tglobaladdr:$addr)), > (LOADI64_RI

Le 07/03/2012 17:36, Jim Grosbach a écrit : > On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jim, >> >> Thanks for your response. >> >> Le 06/03/2012 22:54, Jim Grosbach a écrit : >>> Hi Ivan, >>> On Mar 3, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >>>

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 2/18/2016 6:01 PM, Rail Shafigulin via llvm-dev wrote: > >> [(set SR:$rD, (Esenciasetflag (i32 GPR:$rA), (i32 >> immSExt16:$imm), (i32 Cond)))]> { >> > > I suspect that the "set SR:$rD" is the problem here. The Esenciasetflag

On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for your response. > > Le 06/03/2012 22:54, Jim Grosbach a écrit : >> Hi Ivan, >> On Mar 3, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm facing a problem in llvm while porting it

Hi Jim, Thanks for your response. Le 06/03/2012 22:54, Jim Grosbach a écrit : > Hi Ivan, > On Mar 3, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm facing a problem in llvm while porting it to a new target and I'll >> need some support. >> We have 2 kind of register, one for general purposes (i.e.

On Mar 14, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Ivan Llopard wrote: > Le 07/03/2012 17:36, Jim Grosbach a écrit : >> On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jim, >>> >>> Thanks for your response. >>> >>> Le 06/03/2012 22:54, Jim Grosbach a écrit : >>>> Hi Ivan, >>>> On Mar 3,

> > > > > def SDTX86CmpPTest : SDTypeProfile<1, 2, [SDTCisVT<0, i32>, > SDTCisVec<1>, > SDTCisSameAs<2, 1>]>; > > This is confusing to me. This tells me that there is 1 result but and 2 > operands. But then it says that operands 2 and 1 are of the same type,

Thanks Anton and Krzysztof! Here is the dump using the -debug flag. At this point I am not making much sense of this, would it be too much to ask if one of you could walk me through one of these lines? One thing that I didn't point out is that I never defined any separate floating point registers, not sure if this will pose any issue? Thanks again for your time! Jeff jeff at

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,

It does have an output register, it's just an implicit flag register. It still has a DAG output. I'm not sure if the allocatable bit matters at this point for selection purposes, but it does later. Not adding a type to the register class can also be problematic (e.g. a flag register should have i1 added to regTypes for its class). -Matt > Does LLVM make an assumption that there is an

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2016, at 16:52, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> wrote: > > def SDT_EscalaSetFlag : SDTypeProfile<0, 3, [SDTCisSameAs<0, 1>]>; > > > I think for setting an implicit register, you still need to have 1 result > here. > > If you look at

Hi Quentin, >> Yes, the dags in view-isel-dags and view-legalize-types-dags are correct (the add operations are here and are their results are used) and the dags are the same. > > And what about view-sched-dags? The DAG looks like I described below (*) > This one should give you what has been selected. So if this is not correct, you have indeed a problem in the selection

> > No, this would have to be a void side effecting instruction which is a bit > different. What do you mean by "void side effecting instruction"? I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean. The flag register is an implicit register added to the selected > MachineInstr's operands. Is this something that is always done by LLVM? Is it me who is telling to LLVM

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 1/28/2016 8:11 PM, Rail Shafigulin via llvm-dev wrote: > >> >> Would anyone be able to figure out why this is happening? I can provide >> more code if needed. >> > > The error message should show what types have been inferred so far. > > You

> On Jan 29, 2016, at 13:25, Rail Shafigulin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > I think I understand it. But looks like I have everything labelled properly. Maybe I missed something. Here are more details: > > defm SFEQ : SF<0x0, "l.sfeq", Escala_CC_EQ>; > > multiclass SF<bits<5> op2Val, string asmstr, PatLeaf

> 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: > > >

Hi there, I try to JIT compile some bitcode and seeing the following error: LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: 0x28ec830: ch,glue = X86ISD::CALL 0x28ec7c0, 0x28ef900, Register:i32 %EDI, Register:i8 %AL, RegisterMask:Untyped, 0x28ec7c0:1 0x28ef900: i32 = X86ISD::Wrapper TargetGlobalAddress:i32<void (i8*, ...)* @_ZN5FooBr7xprintfEPKcz> 0 0x28ec520: i32 = TargetGlobalAddress<void (i8*, ...)*

Hi, I'd like to understand the order in which patterns are searched during ISEL. In the example below, indices are searched in ascending order from 808 to 3305, then it goes back to 3259 and eventually it matches the wrong instruction. Why did go back from 3305 to 3259? In my XXXGenDAGISel.inc, I can see that the correct instruction is at index 3420 but it never got there. ISEL: Starting