similar to: Are AMDGPU intrinsics available in LLVM IR ?

Each of the main TableGen files for the supported targets includes include "llvm/Target/Target.td" In turn, Target.td includes include "llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td" The final lines of Instrinsics.td are include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsPowerPC.td" include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsX86.td" include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicsARM.td" include

The identifier INT_PTX_SREG_TID_X is the name of an instruction as the back-end sees it, and has very little to do with the name you should use in your IR. Your best bet is to look at the include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsNVVM.td file and see the definitions for each intrinsic. Then, the name mapping is just: int_foo_bar -> llvm.foo.bar() int_ prefix becomes llvm., and all underscores turn into

I'm building this with llvm-c, and accessing these intrinsics via calling the intrinsic as if it were a function. class F_SREG<string OpStr, NVPTXRegClass regclassOut, Intrinsic IntOp> : NVPTXInst<(outs regclassOut:$dst), (ins), OpStr, [(set regclassOut:$dst, (IntOp))]>; def INT_PTX_SREG_TID_X : F_SREG<"mov.u32 \t$dst, %tid.x;",

Hi Timothy, I'm not sure what you mean by this working for other intrinsics, but in this case, I think you want the intrinsic name llvm.nvvm.read.ptx.sreg.tid.x. For me, this looks like: %x = call i32 @llvm.nvvm.read.ptx.sreg.tid.x() Pete On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldridge at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm building this with llvm-c, and accessing these

Ok, as I said, the most precise way to figure out what's wrong is to emit LLVM IR first (use clang -emit-llvm ...) and check out how it differs from working examples, for instance, nvptx regression tests. ----- Original message ----- > I'm building this with llvm-c, and accessing these intrinsics via calling > the intrinsic as if it were a function. > > class F_SREG<string

Timothy, Those calls to compute grid intrinsics are definitely wrong. In ptx code they should end up into reading special registers, rather than function calls. Try to take some working example and figure out the LLVM IR differences between it and the result of your compiler. - D. ----- Original message ----- > I've written a compiler that outputs PTX code, the result seems fairly >

> On Dec 5, 2017, at 13:53, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 5, 2017, at 02:51, Haidl, Michael via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi dev list, >> >> I am currently exploring the integration of AMDGPU/ROCm into the PACXX project and observing some

Hi Mr. Liu, Thanks for your quick reply. I compiled the code with the libclc_trunk and linked the bitcode file under $LIBCLC_DIR/built_libs/tahiti-amdgcn--.bc. After looking into the libclc, it is currently using the new workitem intrinsics (commit ba9858caa1e927a6fcc601e3466faa693835db5e). In the linked bitcode ($LIBCLC_DIR/built_libs/tahiti-amdgcn--.bc), it has the following code segment,

Hi dev list, I am currently exploring the integration of AMDGPU/ROCm into the PACXX project and observing some strange behavior of the AMDGPU backend. The following IR is generated for a simple address space test that copies from global to shared memory and back to global after a barrier synchronization. Here is the IR is attached as as1.ll The output is as follows: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dear Developers, I compiled a OpenCL kernel before (on Nov. last year) like __kernel void g(__global float* array) { array[get_global_id(0)] = 1; } with libclc, which would originally use the instrinsics like llvm.r600.read.local.size.x(). I executed the generated object file with one version of the hsa-runtime [1] provided by Mr. Stellard, when there was more than one workgroup, the output

I've written a compiler that outputs PTX code, the result seems fairly reasonable, but I'm not sure the intrinsics are getting compiled correctly. In addition, when I try load the module using CUDA, I get an error: CUDA_ERROR_NO_BINARY_FOR_GPU. I'm running this on a 2012 MBP with a 640M GPU. PTX Code (for a mandelbrot calculation): // // Generated by LLVM NVPTX Back-End //

Hi, I have reported a bug on codeplex: http://ironruby.codeplex.com/workitem/6353 Will it be fixed in next release? Thank you, Anton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20110802/78a24916/attachment.html>

Hi all, Currently, the LLVM IR uses a binary value (SingleThread/CrossThread) to represent synchronization scope on atomic instructions. We would like to enhance the representation of memory scopes in LLVM IR to allow more values than just the current two. The intention of this email is to invite comments on our proposal. There are some discussion before and it can be found here:

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 02:28, Haidl, Michael <michael.haidl at uni-muenster.de> wrote: > > The IR goes through a backend agnostic preparation phase that brings it into SSA from and changes the AS from 0 to 1. This sounds possibly problematic to me. The IR should be created with the correct address space to begin with. Changing this in the middle sounds suspect. > After this

​​ Dear all, Here is the plain text version of the proposal: Currently, the LLVM IR uses a binary value (SingleThread/CrossThread) to represent synchronization scope on atomic instructions. We would like to enhance the representation of memory scopes in LLVM IR to allow more values than just the current two. The intention of this email is to invite comments on our proposal. There are some

Ke, I'll be the bearer of bad news here. The radio silence this proposal has gotten probably means there is not enough interest in the community in this proposal to see it land. One concern I have with the current proposal is that the optimization value of these scopes is not clear to me. Is it only the backend which is expected to support optimizations over these scopes? Or are you

> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:18 AM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Matt, > >> On Feb 20, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Arsenault, Matthew via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Some operations on AMDGPU require operands which must be in a register

I have been having some problems with accessing active record attributes using dot notation. Some attributes work, others do not. The attribute exists in the database (it is a smallint). Using breakpointer and IRB I can see it in the active record: irb(#<Transition:0x3900f48>):012:0> self self => #<Transition:0x3900f48

Hi, I'm trying to solve a problem from StructurizeCFG not actually handling regions with multiple exits. Sample IR attached. StructurizeCFG doesn't touch this function, exiting early on the isTopLevelRegion check. SIAnnotateControlFlow then gets confused and ends up inserting an if into one of the blocks, and the matching end.cf into one of the return/unreachable blocks. The input to

> On Apr 18, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Here is the initial proposal with some formatting fixed: > > Currently, the LLVM IR uses a binary value (SingleThread/CrossThread) to > represent synchronization scope on atomic instructions. We would like to > enhance the representation of memory scopes in LLVM IR to allow