similar to: ARM Backend: Emit conditional move

Thank you for your help Tom you are totally right with the registers but the command you suggest also doesn't work. After some research I found the following thread on the mailing list: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-February/110086.html With your help and the information about the condition codes I was able to resolve the error:         BuildMI(BB, BB.end(), DL,

On 03/22/2018 09:29 AM, Julius Hiller via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm working on a MachineFunctionPass that inserts a list of instructions into an Module so a later Pass can work on them. > To do so I load a dummy .ll file created from a main stub, create the needed function stubs (ModulePass), insert Blocks and create instructions using BuildMI. > I started with

Hello everyone, I'm working on a MachineFunctionPass that inserts a list of instructions into an Module so a later Pass can work on them. To do so I load a dummy .ll file created from a main stub, create the needed function stubs (ModulePass), insert Blocks and create instructions using BuildMI. I started with branch instructions:     const TargetMachine &TM = MF.getTarget();

Hi, I'm trying to add a new intrinsic to the ARM backend. The intrinsic should a custom comparison. To do so, I started with first defining the intrinsic in llvm/include/llvm/IR/intrinsicsARM.td: def int_foo_cmp : Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [llvm_i32_ty, llvm_i32_ty], []>; The second step I did is adding a new pseudo instruction matching that intrinsic in lib/Target/ARM/ARMInstInfo.td:

2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: > > On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > >> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: >> Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) >> %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0, %reg0 >> *** STR %LR<kill>, %R0<kill>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0, Mem:ST(4,4) >> [0x8fc2d68 + 0]

Hi again, 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>: > > > On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Roman Levenstein <romix.llvm at googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: >>> >>> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: >>> >>>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1:

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: > Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) > %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0, %reg0 > *** STR %LR<kill>, %R0<kill>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0, Mem:ST(4,4) > [0x8fc2d68 + 0] > %LR<def> = LDR <fi#0>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0 >

Hi, I'm working on the iterated register coalescing graph coloring allocator and try to test it with all backends available currently in LLVM. Initial tests with most of the backends are successful. It turned out that my allocator triggers a specific assertion in the RegScavenger and only for the ARM target. It looks like the LR register is used for frame pointer related things, but it is

On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Roman Levenstein <romix.llvm at googlemail.com > wrote: > 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: >> >> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: >> >>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: >>> Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) >>> %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0,

My home e--mail is down, which is where I get my llvm feeds, so please copy any replies to this address as well as the list. The call instruction can define implicit defs. What are the semantics when the call includes a use with a kill of some register and also an implicit def of that register? Is the register to be considered live out at that point? I've found a failing testcase where

For my target, I handle incoming memory arguments by creating a store to memory (in LowerCall, [1]), then creating a fixed object on the stack and loading from it (in LowerFormalArguments[2]). This approach was based on MSP430. I now have the problem that the resulting loads in my output assembly are done assuming that the call stack looks something like: ------ MemArg ------ MemArg ------

I'm writing a peephole pass and I'm done with the X86_64 instruction level detail work. But I'm having difficulty with the basic block surgery of replacing the old MachineInst. The peephole pass gets called per MachineFunction and then iterates over each MachineBasicBlock and in turn over each MachineInst. When it finds an instruction which should be replaced, it builds a new

I made the change to the BuildMI() call. Again, I don't think that matters. #define BUILD_INS(opcode, new_reg, i) \ BuildMI(*MBB, OldMI, MBBI->getDebugLoc(), TII->get(X86::opcode)) \ .addReg(X86::new_reg, kill).addImm(i) I didn't completely understand your other proposed change: ​ for (MachineBasicBlock::iterator MBBI = MBB->begin();

This seems a very natural approach but I probably am having a trouble with the iterator invalidation. However, looking at other peephole optimizers passes, I couldn't see how to do this: #define BUILD_INS(opcode, new_reg, i) \ BuildMI(*MBB, MBBI, MBBI->getDebugLoc(), TII->get(X86::opcode)) \ .addReg(X86::new_reg, kill).addImm(i) for

Hi Evan, Thanks for your feedback! 2009/1/7 Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>: > > On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > > > As you can see, PrologEpilogInserter has inserted at the beginning > of the function some code for manipulation of the frame pointer and > this inserted code uses the LR register. > As far as I understand,

Is there are reason why ConstantInt::getRawValue method can't be moved one step into class hierarchy, into ConstantIntegral::getRawValue The reason I'd like this is that to handle both ConstantInt and ConstantBool, I need the following: if (ConstantInt* CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(V)) { BuildMI(*MBB, IPt, NM::MOVE, 1, Reg).addImm(CI->getRawValue()); } if

Hi All. I'm writing storeRegToStackSlot and loadFromStackSlot function for my Target. This Target can store/load one byte (not all word) from FrameIndex. If I need to store 16 bit register I will must to split it to two instruction like this: BuildMI(MBB, MI, dl, get(Z80::LD8xmr)) .addFrameIndex(FrameIndex).addImm(0) .addReg(SrcReg, 0, Z80::subreg_lo); BuildMI(MBB, MI, dl,

Dear All, I'm working on an X86 MachineFunctionPass that adds prefetch instructions to a function. I have code that adds a "prefetchnta <constant address>" instruction to x86 32-bit code. What I want to do is to add a "prefetchnta <constant address>" instruction to x86_64 code. The code for adding the 32-bit instruction is:

This looks like a bar in ARMInstrInfo.td: BX_RET should be marked with Uses = [LR] since it uses LR. However, this won't work if there is a call BL before the BX_RET. BL is marked as if it implicitly define LR. So we'll end up with this (hello world example): Live Ins: %LR %R7 %SP<def> = SUBri %SP<kill>, 8, 14, %reg0, %reg0 STR %LR<kill>, %SP,

On 27 September 2010 23:03, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > Can you clarify ARM's position on those structure types?  It sounds like you are advocating that we get rid of them.  The only reason we've been using them in llvm-gcc and clang is for compatibility for ARM's specifications and with ARM's RVCT compiler.  If ARM does not care about those things,