similar to: r267690 - [Clang][BuiltIn][AVX512]Adding intrinsics for vmovntdqa vmovntpd vmovntps instruction set

Hi , In the future, we will address this issue. Regards Michael Zuckerman From: Eric Christopher [mailto:echristo at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 19:54 To: Zuckerman, Michael <michael.zuckerman at intel.com>; Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] r267690 - [Clang][BuiltIn][AVX512]Adding intrinsics for vmovntdqa

Hi Everyone！ I am a newbie at llvm. So the question may be fundamental but difficult to me. I want to add an trinsics in x86 and make the following changes.I want that max_qb can find the max of two Integers and return it. In src/include/llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td : let TargetPrefix = "x86" in { def int_x86_max_qb: GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_x86_max_qb">,

<Copied Cong> Thanks Elena. Mostly I was interested in why such a high cost 30 kept for TRUNCATE v16i32 to v16i8 in SSE41. Looking at the code it appears like TRUNCATE v16i32 to v16i8 in SSE41 is very expensive vs SSE2. I feel this number should be same/close to the cost mentioned for same operation in SSE2ConversionTbl. Below patch from Cong Hou reduce cost for same operation in SSE2

Hi, I was going through the X86TTIImpl::getCastInstrCost, and got a doubt on cost calculation for TRUNCATE instruction in AVX mode. In AVX2ConversionTbl & AVXConversionTbl table there is no cost defined for TRUNCATE v16i32 to v16i8, as a fallback it goes to SSE41ConversionTbl table and there it finds cost as 30 for this operation. 30 cost for this operation looks very high. Wondering why

Sorry in advance for the limited details. I have a build of a recent (Monday) llvm/clang which I have installed in the expected way in my environment but I am getting failures like this; In file included from <some directory>/lib/clang/stable/include/x86intrin.h:29: In file included from <some directory>/lib/clang/stable/include/immintrin.h:118: <some

Hello, There is a problem in the compiler-rt project regarding a new change I need to make. The change is that in extended gcc syntax, when the same register is in the input/output list and in the clobber list, there is a conflict and llvm should produce an error. Until now, it didn't produce an error. In compiler-rt's tests, there's a test which shouldn't generate an error but

Given they in separate repos, is there a way to to verify which revisions go together? Is it enough that the clang (shortly) after llvm in time? On 2/5/19, 1:03 PM, "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: Your clang and your llvm don't match, they're often version locked and you need to make sure both of them are the same-ish revision. -eric

Hi All, 3.4.0 and 3.3.2 releases of GlusterFS are now available. GlusterFS 3.4.0 can be downloaded from [1] and release notes are available at [2]. Upgrade instructions can be found at [3]. If you would like to propose bug fix candidates or minor features for inclusion in 3.4.1, please add them at [4]. 3.3.2 packages can be downloaded from [5]. A big note of thanks to everyone who helped in

Hello，everyone. I am very embarrassed to ask such a simple question. I want to add an intrinsics(named max_qb) in x86 backend. In include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td, I add a intrinsics (GCCBuiltin). In clang( BuiltinsX86.def ), I add a BUILTIN. And in x86 backend , I change : the X86InstrInfo.td to add def X86max_qb_flag , X86InstrArithmetic.td to add define of instruction , X86ISelLowering.cpp to

Thanks Serge! This means for every new intrinsic set, a systematic change should be made to LLVM to support the new intrinsic set, right? The change should include frontend change, IR instruction set change, as well as low level code generation changes? On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:39 AM, serge guelton via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The vast majority of the

Hi，every one. This problem has been bothering me for several days.I really hope that you can help me. I want to add an trinsics in X86. This trinsics can compare two numbers and return the larger. There are the changes I do as fllowing. In /tools/clang/include/clang/Basic/BuiltinsX86.def : BUILTIN(__builtin_x86_max_qb, "iii", "") In include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td : let

Hi, I love llvm vectors, yet I wonder why some advanced vector operations are specific to some CPU targets? Let me take an example: /// Horizontally adds the adjacent pairs of values contained in two /// 128-bit vectors of [4 x float]. /// /// \headerfile <x86intrin.h> /// /// This intrinsic corresponds to the <c> VHADDPS </c> instruction. /// /// \param __a /// A

--------- Forwarded Message --------- From： Tianhao Shen <17862703959 at 163.com> Date： 11/14/2018 09:31 To： craig.topper at gmail.com <craig.topper at gmail.com> Subject： Re: [llvm-dev] How to define an instruction Hi, Craig Thank you for replying to me. I guess that you misunderstand my meaning about "can'r run". I just want to run my instruction by LLVM using the

Hi Craig, Thank you very much for your answer. I did not want to discuss exactly the semantic and name of one operation but instead raise the question "would it be beneficial to have more vector builtins?". You wrote that the compiler will recognize a pattern and replace it by __builtin_ia32_haddps when possible, but how can I be sure of that? I would have to disassemble the generated

Thank you for answering my confusion. I have another questions. If I add really instructions instead intrinsics ,can I reach my purpose? I guess ,the answer is "can't". I don't find the anything about how machine to do about instructions,especially "ALU" instructions. Thank you again, Tianhao Shen On 11/14/2018 13:42，Craig Topper<craig.topper at gmail.com>

I am using the Clang c++ API. I have a blocking issue because the builtin __builtin_va_list clang isn't defined. Here is the error: ..lib/clang/3.2/include/stdarg.h:30:9: error: unknown type name '__builtin_va_list'; did you mean '__builtin_va_list'? typedef __builtin_va_list va_list; >From what I've read, this builtin is target dependent. This builtin is not defined

At least one proprietary linker put a lot of effort into deduplicating and rewriting debug information. This took up the majority of the link time despite serious engineering time on performance optimisation. For example, some sections were written from scratch by the linker because that proved faster than parsing the input. Teaching LLD to dedup DWARF should be expected to dramatically slow it

Clone the existing movq emulation to also support the most fundamental SIMD FP moves. Extend the testing code to also exercise these instructions. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c @@ -629,6 +629,60 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) else