similar to: Backend subtraction changed to negative addition

Hi, All, I want to add one intrinsic function for my particular backend. Let's say the intrinsic function is named "foo" which takes two i32 inputs and has one i32 output. First, I add this line "def int_foo : Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [llvm_i32_ty, llvm_i32_ty], [IntrReadArgMem]>;" in /include/llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td. Then, in my target/InstrInfo.td, I'm supposed

Hi, Gaël, Thanks for your detailed reply. I tried the pattern matching first, however, the intrinsic function is matching with a normal function call. For example, I have the following IR, which contains intrinsic function "foo": ***************************************************************************************** *define i32 @test_func() {* *EntryBlock:* * %0 = call i32

Hi, I'm doing a backend port and I'm having trouble with adds that have negative immediates. My architecture only has instructions for subtracting and adding 8bit immediate values (they will be zero-extended, thus unsigned). Bigger immediates have to be moved in a register first. The problem is: Expressions like "b - 1" result in "add nsw i32 %b, -1" in LLVM IR. They

Christian Sayer wrote: > Hi, > my target architecture has a kind of "16bit addressing mode", i.e. one address does not address 8 bit but a 16bit chunk. Consequently, every constant used to calculate effective addresses must be divided by two. > So far this is not such a problem for stack objects since FrameIndexes, function arguments etc. have a lot of custom lowering code where

Hi, All, I'm trying to build a customized backend and I need to lower the formal arguments like this: There are several specific registers just for storing formal arguments. And also there are several general purpose registers for computation. If there is an instruction which uses parameters, I should first use a move instruction, which moves the value to general purpose register. For

Hello, while testing trivial functions in my backend i noticed a suboptimal way of assigning regs that had the following pattern, consider the following function: typedef unsigned short t; t foo(t a, t b) { t a4 = b^a^18; return a4; } Argument "a" is passed in R15:R14 and argument "b" is passed in R13:R12, the return value is stored in R15:R14. Producing the

Hello > and as the return value. Is this a missed optimization from LLVM or did i > miss something out? > Changing the register allocation order didnt work. What are the patterns for xor / mov ? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Hi, my target architecture has a kind of "16bit addressing mode", i.e. one address does not address 8 bit but a 16bit chunk. Consequently, every constant used to calculate effective addresses must be divided by two. So far this is not such a problem for stack objects since FrameIndexes, function arguments etc. have a lot of custom lowering code where this can be done. But when it comes

> > At first I thought this could be handled when lowering > loads and stores, but I realize that I can only catch the > targeted addresses of loads/stores here - however address > calculation nodes may occur anywhere in a DAG. > > > > So my first impulse would be to adjust the constants when > the GEP instructions are transformed to ADDs. Afaics his > would mean

Currently, instruction selection patterns are defined like this: def : Pat<(and (not GR32:$src1), GR32:$src2), (ANDN32rr GR32:$src1, GR32:$src2)>; def : Pat<(and (not GR64:$src1), GR64:$src2), (ANDN64rr GR64:$src1, GR64:$src2)>; TableGen infers the types of $src1 and $src2 from the specified register classes, and that is the only purpose of the register

hi, some instructions mismatch between assembler & disassembler, like below. it seems this happens with all SSECC related instructions? thanks, Jun $ echo "cmpps xmm1, xmm2, 23" | ./Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -assemble -triple=x86_64 --output-asm-variant=1 -x86-asm-syntax=intel -show-encoding .text cmpps xmm1, xmm2, 23 # encoding: [0x0f,0xc2,0xca,0x17] $

Is it legal to do something like a !strconcat on a non-string entity? That is, is there some operation that will let me do this (replace SOME_CONCAT with an appropriate operator): (WARNING! Hacked-up tablegen ahead!) multiclass sse_fp_binop_bitwise_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr, SDNode OpNode> { // Vector operation emulating scalar (fp)

The IMM3/IMM5 come from here X86RecognizableInstr.cpp 943 TYPE("SSECC", TYPE_IMM3) 944: TYPE("AVXCC", TYPE_IMM5) On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> hi, >> >> some instructions

In BPF, an ADD instruction is defined as a 2 register instruction: 0x0f. add dst, src. dst += src In BPFInstrInfo.td this kind of ALU instruction is defined with: def _rr : ALU_RR<BPF_ALU64, Opc, (outs GPR:$dst), (ins GPR:$src2, GPR:$src), "$dst "#OpcodeStr#" $src", [(set

Hi Bruno, > Some comments: > > + // Try to synthesize horizontal adds from adds of shuffles. > + if (((Subtarget->hasSSE3()&& (VT == MVT::v4f32 || VT == MVT::v2f64)) || > + (Subtarget->hasAVX()&& (VT == MVT::v8f32 || VT == MVT::v4f64)))&& > + isHorizontalBinOp(LHS, RHS, true)) > > 1) You probably want to do something like: >

Hi, I have a simple question w.r.t the order of operands used in dag pattern matching in target files. Some of them seem intuitive. But I want to get it clarified anyway. I am using a pattern from X86InstrFMA.td in the below example. Consider FMA3 pattern (simplified). let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in { multiclass fma3s_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr, X86MemOperand

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jakob Stoklund Olesen" <stoklund at 2pi.dk> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:26:25 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] Simpler types in TableGen isel patterns > > Currently, instruction selection patterns are defined like this: >

Thank You. But can we use same register class for fadd as well, is this instruction correct? def VFADD : I<0x0E, MRMDestReg, (outs VRR128:$dst), (ins VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2),"VFADD\t{$src1, $src2, $dst|$dst, $src1, $src2}", [(set VRR128:$dst, (fadd VRR128:$src1, VRR128:$src2))]>, TA; On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: >

Hi, On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], [IntrNoMem]>; that I want to translate to the following instruction during instruction selection: def divm16_pseudo : MyPseudoInst< (outs aNh_0_7:$dst, aNh_0_7:$dst2), (ins

On Oct 6, 2011, at 7:59 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > For example, I want to be able to do this: > > defm MOVH : > vs1x_fps_binary_vv_node_rmonly< > 0x16, "movh", undef, 0, > // rr > [(undef)], > // rm > [(set DSTREGCLASS:$dst, > (DSTTYPE (movlhps SRCREGCLASS:$src1, >