similar to: [FPEnv] Rust/Go/Swift/Flang/other llvm IRBuilder needs?

In my code assembly system I have the various LH-RH operators, ADD, ADDF, SUB, etc, using CreateAdd, CreateFAdd, etc, however I cant seem to locate the correct function/s for the assignment operator. What's the correct function/s in the IRBuilder for assigning a value? - Paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

However I need the standard assignment operator so I can assign the value of a temporary to that of another temporary, or to create a new temporary from an existing one. - Paul ________________________________________ From: Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> Sent: 16 March 2016 13:11 To: Paul Hancock Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] IRBuilder Assignment (

Intel would like to contribute a patch to implement support for these Intel- and Microsoft -fp options. This message is to describe the options and request feedback from the community. -fp-model=[precise|strict|fast|except[-]] and -fp-speculation=[fast|strict|safe] This contribution would dovetail with the llvm patch "Teach the IRBuilder about constrained fadd and friends" which is

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:09 PM Kevin Neal <Kevin.Neal at sas.com> wrote: > If we don’t have constrained intrinsics for some of the fp math > instructions then aren’t we risking non-strict optimizations? > So far we've only added constrained FP intrinsics for operations that have side effects (i.e. can trap). The quiet-computational sign-bit operations are special. They never

Well, yes, they are different operations. And, yes, this needs to be corrected. This wasn’t my point. It’s a given. I was getting at the _declared_ absence of side effects and what promises we make to anyone using the new fneg instruction. Is this a promise we want to make? From: Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:30 PM To: Kevin Neal

I partially worked out that to do an assign I will need to manually assign a temporary first and then load data into it, which also means I'll need to set up a temporaries list in my code assembler as allocations must be done before anything else? or is it fine to allocate a variable mid-way through a function and the compiler will manage it? With that as well, if I had a function that loads

Do we really want to have fneg be the only instruction with guaranteed no side effects? That just sounds like a gotcha waiting to happen. Or it could result in horrible code depending on the architecture. I’m still leaning towards having both an intrinsic and an instruction, and if they happen to have the same behavior then that’s fine. If fneg is to be a special instruction with extra promises

I have no example side effects in hand. But LLVM targets a bunch of architectures, and who knows what the future holds. So it may be prudent to not promise too much so as to leave ourselves an escape hatch. Doesn’t LLVM target some chips that have floating point instruction sets that are not IEEE compliant? Can we be certain that no new LLVM target will ever have to jump through hoops to avoid

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > ... > I don't think it matters for the question at hand, but I tested > AArch64 too and it exhibits the behaviour you were describing. That > is, we'd have problems if an fsub -0.0 was actually CodeGened like > that (it's not, of course). Great data point. So it's not just

+1 for an explicit FNEG instruction, since as previously discussed, it has stricter requirements for what value may be returned by the operation. And strengthening the requirement on FSUB is not feasible when the values are variables rather than literals. That is: FSUB(-0.0, NaN) = either NaN *or* -NaN FSUB(-0.0, -NaN) = either NaN *or* -NaN FNEG(NaN) = -NaN FNEG(-NaN) = NaN On Tue, Sep 11,

I don't see any controversy for the preliminary requirement of removing BinaryOperator::isFNeg() and friends, so start with that? That work may reveal other potential regressions that we can patch in advance too. Other than that, I think there's really only a question of do we want 1 or both of fneg and fneg_constrained (and if we choose both, then I assume we'd also add

I am trying to get a handle on IR builder, at least some basics. I ran through a tutorial here: Create a working compiler with the LLVM framework, Part 1 <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-createcompilerllvm1/>, and it worked well enough. I have some simple code that creates a hello world IR. I am trying to now bring in some concepts from the Kaleidoscope tutorial, namely

It seems that the problem was because I used builder.CreateFAdd to create a <2 x double> vectortype FADD instruction. It works if I use it to create the scalar version FADD. I want to have an instruction like: *%2 = fadd <2 x double> undef, <2 x double> undef. *The following is the way I used to create the vectorized FADD instruction: //pInst is a double type instruction

Thanks Nick, that's something what I am trying to implement as the following. But it seems I still only get the constant value not the instruction. Could you please go over the following instruction and see what wrong with it? Thanks for your time again. Value *vecVal = NULL; IRBuilder<> builder(&*pInst); Type *vecTy = VectorType::get(Type::getDoubleTy(ctxt), 2); Value

I got it. Thanks, Nick. So, it is back to the previous problem. If I have the following instruction: %3 = fadd double %1, double %2 I want to change it into %6 = fadd <2 x double> %4, double %5 where %4 = <double %1, double %1>, %5 = <double %2, double %2>, how can I do this? Thanks, Best On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: >

Which exactly was the plan? Add a new, regular instruction? Add a new constrained math intrinsic? Both? Andrew Kaylor made a good point here: * As I said, all LLVM IR FP instructions are //assumed// to have no side effects. I'm not sure we want an instruction that goes beyond this to be //defined// as having no side effects. It adds a complication to the language and introduces

Value * is the instruction. use dyn_cast<Instruction> to get to it. On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:39 PM zhi chen <zchenhn at gmail.com> wrote: > But IRBuilder.CreateXYZ only returns a "VALUE" type. Can I get the > instruction created by it? For example, > > IRBuilder<> builder(&*pinst); > Value *val = builder.CreateFAdd(LV, RV, ""); >

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:32 AM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:47 PM Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> > wrote: > >> >> This is the first time I'm looking at foldShuffledBinop(...), so maybe a >> naive question, but why not do similar shuffle canonicalizations on unary >> (or

Hal, Eric, Johannes, David and Peter, I lead the development of OpenMP for AMD GPUs and work with others at AMD who support OpenMP on AMD CPUs. On behalf of our development teams, we greatly appreciate your efforts to move the development of flang into a subproject in the llvm-project repository and to integrate this development effort into the overall LLVM development community. Like most

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > I have 1 concern about adding an explicit fneg op to IR: > > Currently, fneg qualifies as a binop in IR (since there's no other way to > represent it), and we have IR transforms that are based on matching that > pattern (m_BinOp). With a proper unary fneg instruction, those transforms >