similar to: Manipulating global address inside GlobalAddress SDNode in (RISCV) LLVM backend

> > I don't think there's a real shortage of those, but I confess I'm not > sure why that's related. You'd need a representation for the LUI and > ADDI after instruction selection anyway. Yeah at the end we need a representation for LUI and ADDI. We were trying to break the 64 bit address from GlobalAddress node into two i32 register. We will add custom load/store

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:21 PM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 at 17:16, Reshabh Sharma <reshabhsh at gmail.com> wrote: > > We thought LUI and ADDI pair will be good to store the values in a i32 > register. > > With you so far, I think. To be explicit, to materialize a full 64-bit > pointer you'd need 4 instructions:

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:42 PM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 at 18:03, Reshabh Sharma <reshabhsh at gmail.com> wrote: > > Ah now I could see it more clearly. I was not sure that should I add > them (MO_LO32_LO and MO_LO32_HI), btw this was backup plan. Probably for > now we are going with this. I implemented them today and

Hello everyone, I wanted to attach a node without affecting the present nodes in any way. I tried to use MVT::Glue for that but I think I'm missing something as I could not achieve the below state. LUI LUI | | ADDI ----GLUE---- ADDI | store I've few question about this and Glue node in general, I'll be happy to get some help on

Every GlobalAddress has a GlobalValue, Every GlobalValue is a PointerType, Every PointerType has an AddressSpace. So is it ok to add a method getAddressSpace in GlobalAddressSDNode class itself? Currently we have to do GSDN->getGlobal()->getType()->getAddressSpace(). - Sanjiv

I've been looking at GlobalAddress lowering strategy recently and was wondering if anyone had any ideas, insights, or experience to share. ## Background When lowering global address, which is typically done in FooTargetLowering::LowerGlobalAddress you have the option of folding in the global offset into the global address or else emitting the base globaladdress and a separate ADD node for the

Hello everyone. I use this command clang -emit-llvm hello.c -c -o hello.bc llc hello.bc -march=mipsel -relocation-model=static -o hello.s to produce this MIPS code: .section .mdebug.abi32 .previous .file "hello.bc" .text .globl main .align 2 .type main, at function .set nomips16 # @main .ent main main: .cfi_startproc .frame $sp,32,$ra .mask 0x80000000,-4 .fmask

> > Hi Reshabh, and congratulations on being selected for GSoC. I haven't > looked at supporting larger than native-width pointers on a target > before. I'd thought that AVR might be relevant (given it uses 16-bit > pointers but has 8-bit GPRs). See the description here > <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-January/129089.html>. > Many thanks Alex,

More information on this... still not working When I build the project for Debug and run the program, the following message is printed before assert. NODE: 0x937bac8: i64 = GlobalAddress <i32* @var> 0 I guess it is expecting that GlobalAddress be legalized before reaching ExpandOp(). I haven't implemented anything for ISD::GlobalAddress, and that may explain it, however, I

Here is a last example to illustrate my concern. The problem is about the lowering of node t13. Initial selection DAG: BB#0 '_start:entry' SelectionDAG has 44 nodes: t11: i16 = Constant<0> t0: ch = EntryToken t3: ch = llvm.clp.set.rspa t0, TargetConstant:i16<392>, Constant:i32<64> t5: ch = llvm.clp.set.rspb t3,

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > More information on this... still not working > When I build the project for Debug and run the program, the following > message is printed before assert. > > NODE: 0x937bac8: i64 = GlobalAddress <i32* @var> 0 This implies that your target uses 64-bit pointers, but that it doesn't have a 64-bit register

The DAG dumping will try to print some of the nodes "inline" (i.e. where they are used) to make the output more readable, so the dump of the DAG may not strictly reflect the node ordering. -Krzysztof On 5/4/2018 8:18 AM, Dominique Torette via llvm-dev wrote: > Here is a last example to illustrate my concern. > > The problem is about the lowering of node t13. > >

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 1/13/2016 2:26 PM, Phil Tomson via llvm-dev wrote: > >> I've got this PseudoOp defined: >> >> def SDT_RELADDR : SDTypeProfile<1, 2, [SDTCisInt<0>, SDTCisInt<1>]>; >> def XSTGRELADDR :

Krzysztof, Thanks for your interest to my questions. In order to clarify the context, here is the C source file of my test case. The 3 builtins initialize some stack pointers. They have to be executed before any other instruction. extern float fdivfaddfmul_a(float a, float b, float c, float d); volatile static float x1,x2,x3,x4; void _start(void) { float res;

Thank you Chris, I had the pointer size wrong. I fixed it and now it passes that point as expected :) which takes me to a second question: The processor that I am working on is 8-bit and has Harvard architecture; this implies different pointer types (sizes) to objects in data memory or program memory (functions or data in program memory) At this moment, I am just using only one pointer size

> > I don't think there is code in Legalizer to expand GlobalAddress. But you > can custom lower it. X86 custom lower GlobalAddress nodes for a different > reason. > > Evan > Hmmm...That means we have to make i16 as a legal type (since GlobalAddresses are 16-bits) and custom lower all 16-bit operations to 8-bit operations. I was thinking to take advantage of the

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > Thank you Chris, > I had the pointer size wrong. I fixed it and now it passes that point as > expected :) which takes me to a second question: cool > The processor that I am working on is 8-bit and has Harvard > architecture; this implies different pointer types (sizes) to objects in > data memory or program memory

On Aug 6, 2008, at 3:54 AM, Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote: > Pointer size on our target is 16-bits, and we have two 16-bit > registers that can be used only to hold pointers (indirect addresses). > > All operations on the target are 8-bit operations, so it takes two 8- > bit loads to load these pointer registers. > > We want LLVM to automatically expand all types to

Hi all. Currently if you launch some tool with "-debug" option, you got pretty detailed dump. Though the SelectionDAG nodes will dumped as its pointer values: 0xa1d7258: i32 = GlobalAddress<void (i32, ...)* @f> 0 0xa1d7368: i32 = undef [ORD=1] 0xa1d73f0: i32 = TargetConstant<12> [ORD=1] ... It is good if you want to look at memory contents by its address then. But if you

On 20/04/2009, at 07.35, Peter Bacon wrote: > Hello, I am learning to write a new backend for LLVM and have a few > simple questions. Hi Peter, I am a newbie too, but I have recently dealt with the same issues. > 1) What are the differences between 'constant' and 'targetconstant', > 'globaladdress' and 'targetglobaladdress'? It is not clear from