similar to: [RFC] Enforcing immediate operands for intrinsics

> On Feb 5, 2019, at 6:55 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > There is something similar going on in clang in SemaChecking.cpp. The difference is that each target can write its own verification code, which may check things like value ranges, for example. > The scheme you're proposing would invent a new attribute (a widespread change)

Hi, That's what the DecoderMethod is for. Similarly ParserMatchClass for the asm parser and PrintMethod for the asm printer: def CondCodeOperand : AsmOperandClass { let Name = "CondCode"; } def pred : PredicateOperand<OtherVT, (ops i32imm, i32imm), (ops (i32 14), (i32 zero_reg))> { let PrintMethod = "printPredicateOperand";

Probably the issue is solvable in some Codegen prepare pass. That said I still believe some kind of control on if we would like to implement this or not could be useful. Just a question. Why implementing it in SimplifyCFG and not as a separate pass like JumpThreading or something like that? The transformation itself doesn’t seem to fit much in SimplifyCFG. > On 2 Sep 2016, at 13:35, Michael

Hello everyone, I've just uploaded a patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D70261) to introduce a could of new token types to be used with constrained floating point intrinsics and, optionally, vector predicated intrinsics. These intrinsics may not be of interest to many of you, but I have a more general question. I would like some general feedback on the way I am proposing to use token arguments

AArch64AddressTypePromotion.cpp does a fair bit of work to help make these things work out well. It could probably be generalized for non-AArch64 targets as per the comment in the file header. > On Jun 26, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > > Cool HW trick. :) > Are those 'sxtw' ops free? > That’ll depend on the details of the

On 26 October 2016 at 12:14, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: >> >> So, to summarise the overall consensus on this thread: >> - We should introduce a GlobalConstant class which supports definitions >> and declarations >> - It should derive from GlobalValue

On 24 October 2016 at 16:54, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> > wrote: >> >> On 10/24/2016 1:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >>

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > So, for the declaration, do you expect to know the value? If not just > a declaration to a GlobalVariable should be sufficient. > No, the value will be discovered at link time, but we want instruction selection to treat the symbol as an immediate, not a GlobalAddress that will

Re-adding list. On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 26, 2016, at 10:10 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> To what Reid said, I'm not really worried about impact

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > So, to summarise the overall consensus on this thread: > - We should introduce a GlobalConstant class which supports definitions > and declarations > - It should derive from GlobalValue > - No type changes for GlobalValue (i.e. still required to be pointer type) > - To communicate the range

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> @foo = globalconst i32 42 > >>> > >>> > >>> This is equivalent to writing "foo = 42" in assembly? > >> > >> > >> Yes. > > > > > > Back in the day the idea was to use an alias whose ConstantExpr

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > You get the code you want with > > > > @foo = external hidden global i8 > > > > or > > > > @foo = external protected global i8 > > Sorry, not quiet. What you get is > > leaq foo(%rip), %rax > > Since it is still assuming foo is a

To what Reid said, I'm not really worried about impact on the middle end of any of this. We can handle the code changes, etc. I agree with Chris about what we're trading off here: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:48 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I’d argue the other side of it. The quality of the code is higher if we > have invariants (like

> You get the code you want with > > @foo = external hidden global i8 > > or > > @foo = external protected global i8 Sorry, not quiet. What you get is leaq foo(%rip), %rax Since it is still assuming foo is a position in the file. So yes, we need a way to declare an absolute value. If we can declare it, we may as well use the same construct to define it. I guess the

On 10/24/2016 1:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk > <mailto:peter at pcc.me.uk>> wrote: > > The specific change I have in mind is to allow !range metadata on > GlobalObjects. This would > be similar to existing !range metadata, but it would apply to the >

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Responding to both of your emails in one, sorry for the delay: > > On Oct 25, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > I think there are a couple of additional considerations we should make > here: > > - What are we trying to model? To me it's clear

> On Oct 25, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:48 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >> On Oct 24, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk <mailto:peter at pcc.me.uk>> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 26, 2016, at 1:34 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > wrote: > >> Responding to both of your emails in one, sorry for the delay: >> >> On Oct 25, 2016, at 11:20 AM,

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:04 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > I have been experimenting with a number of approaches to representation in >> SDAG, and I have found one that seems to work best, and would be the least >> intrusive (unfortunately most approaches to this

On Oct 26, 2016, at 1:34 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com <mailto:clattner at apple.com>> wrote: > Responding to both of your emails in one, sorry for the delay: > >> On Oct 25, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk <mailto:peter at