similar to: llvm::cl::opt and enums

Thanks again for your help Steve, I’m thinking perhaps my “SelectADDRrr” pattern is inadequate. The sign-extension is at the hardware level, the code generator sees (should see) it as a 16-bit signed register value. My implementation is just: bool SHAVEISelDAGtoDAG::SelectADDRrr(SDValue &Addr, SDValue &Base, SDValue &Offset) { if ((Addr.getOpcode() == ISD::ADD) { Base

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:04 AM, ORiordan, Martin <martin.oriordan at intel.com > wrote: > Thanks Sean and Silva. > > > > I guess what I was seeking was a URL that I could point (non-compiler) > people at, but I guess no such reference exists. What I can do if > reference bot the source manager and use ‘-mllvm -debug-pass=Structure’ > for each optimisation level,

Thanks Ahmed and also Alex for your replies. This is more or less what I was realising, but it is a great confidence booster to know that it is the correct way also. I can replace all of my various 'Select*' specialisations with version that use 'ReplaceNode/SelectCode' and return 'void', but what about the places where I currently call 'Select(N)' directly?

Thanks :) From: 陳韋任 [mailto:chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw] Sent: 14 April 2017 12:53 To: Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Options for timing passes in LLVM? Refer to `llc` document [1], it would be `--time-passes`. [1] http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/llc.html HTH,

I've no idea, but without it, the 'std::to_string' definitions are not enabled! -----Original Message----- From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org] Sent: 06 July 2016 19:35 To: Martin.ORiordan at movidius.com Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GCC prerequisites for building LLVM head? On 6 July 2016 at 19:02, Martin J.

Thanks for the quick answer Bruce. So far as I can tell (from a quick read), this is really for integrated assemblers/disassemblers - but we use an external assembler. When invoking clang we would provide ‘-mcpu=chip_v1’ or ‘-mcpu=chip_v2’, and the mnemonic ‘LD32’ is only valid when compiling for ‘chip_v1’, while ‘LD.32’ is only valid when compiling for ‘chip_v2’. But I will study the

Martin hi. It seems like you have in fact understood the offered solution, and its disadvantages. The thing is, that as far as I understand Tblgen (and I think I do :-) ), The idea behind it is that records only have state (i.e., fields), and not a behavior (i.e., methods) - so dynamic evaluation can only be achieved by built-in functions. (e.g., !if(), !foreach() etc...). Maybe you can try

It occurred to me that instead of the various breakout 'Select*' functions returning the 'SDNode*' result, maybe I should be calling: ReplaceNode(N, newValue); return; or: SelectCode(N); return; Perhaps? MartinO From: Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:martin.oriordan at movidius.com] Sent: 28 June 2016 16:49 To: 'LLVM Developers'

"Martin J. O'Riordan" <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> writes: > Thanks Ahmed and also Alex for your replies. > > This is more or less what I was realising, but it is a great > confidence booster to know that it is the correct way also. I can > replace all of my various 'Select*' specialisations with version that > use

Yep, done that already, but it is not at all a good fit when the device is inside a drone flying around ;-) What we do have, is a fake file-system that keeps everything in memory, and after the profiling is completed we offload it for analysis. I guess I was hoping that there would be a more robust system agnostic implementation. Use of ‘mmap’ is similarly constraining. MartinO

I just checked with '-E' and I am picking up '<string>' from: /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc/cygwin/4.9.3/include/c++/string all other C++ headers are coming from the same place. The 'std::to_string' functions are not present in '<string>', but they are located in '<bits/basic_string.h>' - which is included. Perhaps it is a broken Cygwin

Thanks again Elior, Yes, I tried using '!if', etc. but I just get type mismatches for the initializer (int) - probably something daft I'm doing :-( MartinO -----Original Message----- From: Malul, Elior [mailto:elior.malul at intel.com] Sent: 29 September 2013 09:19 To: Martin.ORiordan at movidius.com; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Tblgen and computed expressions

Hi Mehdi and my apologies for the delay in responding - the day job got in the way :-) Our target is still out-of-tree so my reasons for extending the IR would be eliminated if we were a proper part of LLVM, which I would like to do when the time is right for us. My extensions are quite simple really, and I expect that they will be wanted in the TRUNK sometime anyway. At the moment I only have

I was investigating an error diagnostic in the following test example: typedef signed char char16 __attribute__((ext_vector_type(16))); void test( char16 srcA, char16 srcB, char16 *dst) { *dst = ( srcA == srcB ); } which produces the message: mismatch.c:5:10: error: assigning to 'char16' from incompatible type 'char __attribute__((ext_vector_type(16)))' *dst = (

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It occurred to me that instead of the various breakout ‘Select*’ functions > returning the ‘SDNode*’ result, maybe I should be calling: > > > > ReplaceNode(N, newValue); > > return; > > or: > > SelectCode(N); > > return; > > >

Generally it is safer to include ISO headers first (using the ‘#include <...>’ form) so as to minimise the possibility that a later user declaration or macro definition interferes with the correctness of the Standard libraries. It also tends to make pre-compiled header implementations faster and more shareable across a larger set of files. I would like to suggest revising the LLVM

I am in the middle of the fun and games of updating my out-of-tree sources to the LLVM head revisions, and after updating to CMake v3.5.2 I am now getting a warning that 'ENABLE_TIMESTAMPS' is being ignored. Has support for embedding the timestamp in the build been removed or is there a new way of configuring it? I generally build internal transitional builds with this enabled so that

Hi, On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am in the middle of the fun and games of updating my out-of-tree sources > to the LLVM head revisions, and after updating to CMake v3.5.2 I am now > getting a warning that ‘ENABLE_TIMESTAMPS’ is being ignored. > > > > Has support for embedding the timestamp

I agree, it's much clearer, it just takes runs at multiple opt levels and therefore I don't find it to be a "one stop shop". On Jun 24, 2017 8:44 PM, "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Looking at PassManagerBuilder can be useful because there are sometimes > comments giving some idea of the intent of the particular choice of passes, > but

In order to implement a subtle memory access optimisation during post-RA scheduling, I want to be able to determine some properties about the memory access. If I have two registers referring to memory, how can I determine if they are derived from the same base-pointer? Often LLVM will optimise to use intermediate registers holding partial displacements, for example, when a 'struct'