similar to: Per-function subtargets

I've been investigating what is needed to ensure command line options are passed to the backend codegen passes during LTO and enable compiling different functions in a module with different command line options (see the links below for previous discussions). http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/78855 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/80456 The command

Hi, I found some different discrepancy on how Subtarget is created between some arch specific TargetMachine constructor. For example, for BPF/Lanai: BPFTargetMachine::BPFTargetMachine(const Target &T, const Triple &TT, StringRef CPU, StringRef FS, const TargetOptions &Options,

To continue the discussion I started last year (see the link below) on embedding command-line options in bitcode, I came up with a plan to improve the way the backend changes UnsafeFPMath on a per-function basis. The code in trunk currently resets TargetOptions::UnsafeFPMath at the beginning of SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction to enable compiling one function with “unsafe-fp-math=true” and

Hello, I'm implementing a port of LLVM for PowerPC VLE. It's a compressed instruction set similar to mips16 and ARM Thumb. Instruction encoding (VLE/non-vle) is selected for a given memory region by an attribute in a memory area descriptor. Targets supporting this that I know of are all bare-metal (so powerpc-none-elf). I'm trying to implement ELF support right now. VLE ELF files

Hi all, As of r232885 I've removed the argument-less TargetMachine::getSubtarget and TargetMachine::getSubtargetImpl. For the targets that aren't completely independent of this I've gone ahead and left a non-virtual version of the function in the target specific TargetMachine. What this means in practice is that those targets can only use a bare getSubtarget call in their target

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed Dec 03 2014 at 11:39:23 AM Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 4:31:43 PM Akira Hatanaka

Thanks, Alex. See my comments below. On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: > On 22 August 2017 at 23:39, Y Song via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, > > Hi Yonghong. > >> I found some different discrepancy on how Subtarget is created >> between some arch specific TargetMachine constructor.

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello llvm-dev, > > > > Following up on the "CodeGen Context" discussion that was started, > attached is patch which implements a pretty minimal skeleton of a CGContext > implementation.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 4:31:43 PM Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 4:22:15 PM Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com>

Hello llvm-dev, Following up on the "CodeGen Context" discussion that was started, attached is patch which implements a pretty minimal skeleton of a CGContext implementation. The goal is to allow the newly added subtarget attributes on functions to be made available to codegen so that codegen can actually switch subtargets within a Module. Comments and questions are invited herewith.

Hi Chris, Chris Lattner wrote: >> 2) Line 369 of PPCInstrInfo.td, we declare the non-callee saved registers. >> However, Linux and Darwin do not have the same set >> of non-callee saved registers. I don't know how to make the if(isDarwin) test >> in here >> > > Take a look at ARM/ARMRegisterInfo.td for an example of this I tried to define Defs just

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at google.com> > wrote: >> >> Agreed. The DataLayout should move (back) to the TargetMachine and live >> there (I'm doing that part right now). I don't particularly want to put it >> on the module

I'm implementing this capability to allow switching between mips32 and mips16 code generation on a per function basis (should be useful for arm to thumb switching too). The problem is that while various things are done on a per function basis, there are two passes registered on a per module basis (target lowering and instruction selection). With the new attribute scheme, we can wake up

On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello llvm-dev, > > Following up on the "CodeGen Context" discussion that was started, attached is patch which implements a pretty minimal skeleton of a CGContext implementation. The goal is to allow the newly added subtarget attributes on functions to be made available to codegen so that codegen

Thanks for your feedback, Eric. I still think we may be talking past each other a little bit, but rather than delving further into the details right now, I’ve suggested to Akira that he look into how we should handle other kinds of options. I’m hoping that as we look at more of them, we will gain some insight into the approach that we want to take here. This patch really only deals with the easy

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 4:22:15 PM Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for your feedback, Eric. >> >> I still think we may be talking past each other a little bit, but rather >> than >> > > Might be, sorry if so :( > > >> delving

On Jan 6, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Trying to bubble way back to the top, Andy, do you think there is anything else that needs to be done here before it can go in? I feel like most of our discussion centered around future work, and I'd like to unblock the immediate work to support subtarget-specific code generation. Do we have a solution

> On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed Nov 19 2014 at 4:39:42 PM Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com <mailto:ahatanak at gmail.com>> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>> wrote: > So my general concern here is

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Can you elaborate on your goals and what problem you are trying to solve? As Chandler points out, DataLayout is part of module for a reason. Which is an interesting point - it's not really. (This was also going to be part of my talk next week, but since it's been brought up...) So

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > Right. On the flip side, some passes should be able to make hard queries > against target/subtarget that fail if the driver doesn’t initialize them. I > don’t want any way to accidentally run the vectorizer or LSR without > initializing my subtarget info. Also, I want to prevent early passes from >