similar to: Fw: How to define an instruction

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>

Hi,every one. I' in trouble again. I want add a new intrinsic mapping a new instruction. I add the int_x86_max_qb as fllowing: def int_x86_max_qb: GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_x86_max_qb">, Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [llvm_i32_ty, llvm_i32_ty], [Commutative]>; BUILTIN(__builtin_x86_max_qb, "iii", "") I define the intrinsic as Pseudo instruction,it

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 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">,

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

On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:25 AMPDT, Argyrios Kyrtzidis wrote: > >> The attached .ll files seem equivalent, but the resulting asm from >> 'opt-fail.ll' causes a crash to webkit. >> I suspect the usage of registers is wrong, can someone take a look ? > > Yes, the code here is wrong: > >> movl

Hi all, I am experiencing a problem with the representation of addresses in the x86_64 TableGen backend and was hoping someone can tell me if it is fixable. Any comments or hints in to send me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated. I am using LLVM version 3.8, commit 251286. I have an IR pass that stores metadata in the upper 32 bits of 64-bit pointers in order to implement

Hi Eli, Thanks, I’ll look into that then! Cheers, Taddeüs From: Friedman, Eli Sent: Wednesday, 2 August 2017 19:48 To: Taddeus; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Efficiently ignoring upper 32 pointer bits whendereferencing On 8/2/2017 9:03 AM, Taddeus via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi all, > > I am experiencing a problem with the representation of addresses in > the x86_64

Hi, I'm trying to revive jacobly0's Z80 back-end (from https://github.com/jacobly0/llvm-z80) and build it with a current version of LLVM. Apart from some interface changes, I'm stuck at building the tables. Specifically, the generation of the DAG instruction selector causes an assertion in the table generator: Assertion failed: Ops.size() >= NumSrcResults &&

I am working on some optimizations for our VLIW processor; one ALU performs 32-bit operations, while another performs 8-, 16- or 32-bit operations. Sometimes it is useful for the 32-bit ALU to perform 8- or 16-bit operations such as ADD, SUB, SHL, AND, etc. that are not dependent on the additional 24-bits, but because it is 32-bit ALU, the condition codes are updated. When this is being used to

I have an llvm ir, which generates the following machine code using llc (llvm 3.0 on win32) after # *** IR Dump After X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection ***: The first three lines and the last two lines alone together are used to compute "sin" for some double number. - line 1: move the stack pointer down 8 - line 2: copy the updated stack pointer to a base register - line 3: copy a

Hi, While working some more on the backend, I've added callee register saving and have come across something odd (I assume its because i've not implemented something), this is with optimisations which makes it even more odd : MOV.L [R7+ 12], R1 ; 4-byte Folded Spill MOV.L [R7+ 8], R2 ; 4-byte Folded Spill ADD.L R0,R0 + R1 ADD.L

Hi Peng, Can you please open a bugzilla and attache the LL file ? Can you please reproduce it on ToT ? Thanks, Nadav On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Peng Cheng <gm4cheng at gmail.com> wrote: > I have an llvm ir, which generates the following machine code using llc (llvm 3.0 on win32) after # *** IR Dump After X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection ***: > > The first three lines

Hi Xiang, On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:59 AM Zhang, Xiang1 <xiang1.zhang at intel.com> wrote: > Jeremy wrote: > > ... The value %0 is live up to and including the ADD64ri but not past it, meaning LLVM today will drop the DBG_VALUE ... > > Just a little puzzle about the " drop the DBG_VALUE ", maybe I didn't get your key point, >

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

My architecture has an FPU, but uses integer registers to store floating-point values. So each register can store either an int or an IEEE float. I define a register class like this: def GR32 : RegisterClass<"MyArch", [i32, f32], 32, (sequence "R%u", 0, 32)>; So far so good. However, when I write a rule to store a register: def STORE32r : S32< (outs), (ins

I am wondering about register allocation when there is a kill flag on the MachineOperand. Do I need to remove the kill flag? This code below is just an example from test\CodeGen\X86\xor.ll # Machine code for function test3: Frame Objects: fi#-2: size=4, align=4, fixed, at location [SP+8] fi#-1: size=4, align=8, fixed, at location [SP+4] Function Live Outs: %EAX BB#0: derived from LLVM BB

Hi, while writing my register allocator, I have come across a case which confuses me because the llvm definition cannot be mapped to machine code. For instance I come across (1) and I reduce it to (2). However a copy instruction cannot move from EDX to CX. What mechanics in LLVM will tell me that I cannot make this move during register allocation, or how can I tell from (1) that I cannot execute

Hello all, In r223757 I've committed a patch that performs, for the 32-bit x86 calling convention, the transformation of MOV instructions that push function arguments onto the stack into actual PUSH instructions. For example, it will transform this: subl $16, %esp movl $4, 12(%esp) movl $3, 8(%esp) movl $2, 4(%esp) movl $1, (%esp) calll _func addl $16, %esp