similar to: [LLVMdev] unable to match FrameIndex<1>

Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > >> >> Suppose I have a target that does not have register+constant >> addressing mode. Then, I have DAG like: >> >> (store ..., (frameindex)) >> >> Targets like SPARC have the following patterns to catch this: >> >> def ADDRri : ComplexPattern<i32, 2,

Suppose I have a target that does not have register+constant addressing mode. Then, I have DAG like: (store ..., (frameindex)) Targets like SPARC have the following patterns to catch this: def ADDRri : ComplexPattern<i32, 2, "SelectADDRri", [frameindex], []>; def STri : F3_2<3, 0b000100, (outs), (ins MEMri:$addr, IntRegs:$src),

On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Suppose I have a target that does not have register+constant > addressing mode. Then, I have DAG like: > > (store ..., (frameindex)) > > Targets like SPARC have the following patterns to catch this: > > def ADDRri : ComplexPattern<i32, 2, > "SelectADDRri", [frameindex], []>; > def STri :

Hello, My target has two data memories, each with its own load/store instructions but also has some instructions using both memories. I want to be able to access both memories in C-programs through the address space attribute. I have two ideas so far: Either: use two sets of addressing modes in InstrInfo.td: def ADDRrr_A : ComplexPattern<i16, 2, “SelectADDRrr_A", [], []>; def ADDRri :

Hi All I'm having nightmares with FrameIndexes during my backend development :( I have ComplexPatterns defined for my two addressing modes (RR and RI). Most of the time, FrameIndex operands appear to be on load/store nodes, in which case everything works fine as my custom addressing modes matchers work fine. Unfortunately, I now have an add node which has a FrameIndex operand (this results

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:59 AM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 06:26, Gleb Popov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> While the store is being selected LLVM will just treat the value being > >> stored as a generic pointer-width integer unless you have written a > >> specific pattern for

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:08 PM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 12:16, Gleb Popov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 1. Where does it come from? Can I do anything to make it not appear? > > It comes from something like: > > %ptr = alloca i8 > %var = alloca i8* > store i8* %ptr, i8**

Hi all, I started to write an LLVM backend for custom CPU. I created XXXInstrInfo but there are some problems. I searched for it but I couldn't find anything. Can anyone help me? include "XXXInstrFormats.td" def simm16 : Operand<i32> { let DecoderMethod = "DecodeSimm16"; } def mem : Operand<i32> { let PrintMethod = "printMemOperand"; let

Hello. After "Initial selection DAG" stage I get a DAG with node t14: ch = store<(store 4 into %ir.p45, align 8, addrspace 1)> t10, FrameIndex:i32<2>, FrameIndex:i32<3>, undef:i32 1. Where does it come from? Can I do anything to make it not appear? 2. If not, how do I change it so that the operand being stored would be first loaded into a register, and that register

Hello everyone, I would like to ask a question about the address calculation in TableGen. I replace a definition in MipsInstrInfo.td: def : Pat<(i32 (extloadi16_a addr:$src)), (LHu addr:$src)>; to: def : Pat<(i32 (extloadi16_a addr:$src)), (OR (LBu addr:$src), (SLL (LBu addr:($src+1)), 8))>; However, it failed to compiled. It seems that ($src+1) is a wrong representation in TableGen.

Oh, they have selection details in the end. Let me check that first... On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 4:05 PM Xiaochu Liu <xiaochu1122 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Matt, > > I tried debug-only=isel and have some more informations. > The steps before 'Legalized selection'( excluding it) all use v2i32 load. > At the step of 'Legalized selection', it replaced one v2i32

Hi Tim, >That C++ function is probably what looks for an FrameIndex node and >has been taught that it can be folded into the load. How do you teach a function that a node can be folded into an instruction? ________________________________ From: Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:52 PM To: Josh Sharp Cc: via llvm-dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]

I'm not compiling it to x86. Should loop optimizer something independent of the target? If so, should the vectorized code on IR level? On Aug 12, 2016 11:39 AM, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > cat > test.c > > #define SIZE 128 > > void bar(int *restrict A, int* restrict B,int K) { > > #pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)

Hello > Finally, I don't know how to describe following instructions in > MCoreInstrInfo.td, because of its variable ins/outs. Or what other files > should I use to finish this description? Do you need the isel support for them? If yes, then you should custom isel them. iirc ARM and SystemZ backends have similar instructions, while only the first one supports full isel for them. In

Hi, all, I have been recently porting a backend for our experimental DSP. It has a regular register file for ALU, naming it R registers, and another register file (J registers) for memory access. Both R registers and J registers are 32-bit. Since LLVM cannot distinguish 32-bit integers or pointers during register allocation, I have to define J as 64-bit, although it's physically 32-bit. This

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:38 PM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Gleb, > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 07:28, Gleb Popov <6yearold at gmail.com> wrote: > > def StoreStackF : InstRI<2, (outs), (ins IntRegs:$reg, i32imm:$i), > > "storestackf $reg, [$i]", [(store_stack i32:$reg, > AddrFI:$i)]>; > > >

Hi Tim, Thanks for your message! It turns out that the infrastructure (an outdated one) that I am working on is using gcc+dragonegg to generate llvm code: gcc -m32 -S -c -O0 -fplugin=$(DRAGONEGG_SO) -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-emit-ir $< -o $@.tmp It directly generates llvm code with fadd, etc. I'm not familiar with dragonegg plugin... Thanks, XIaochu On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:00 PM,

Hi, I'm try to lower the store LLVM-IR instruction as per the following LLVM IR program: *** IR Dump After Module Verifier *** define void @storeloadi32() { %ptr = alloca i32 store volatile i32 12, i32* %ptr ret void } The target instruction is associated to the store like this: def MOVSUTO_A_iSLr : CLPFPU_A_iSLr<0b1000001101,

Hi Daniel, I increased the size of your test to be 128 but -stats still shows no loop optimized... Xiaochu On Aug 12, 2016 11:11 AM, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > It's not possible to know that A and B don't alias in this example. It's > almost certainly not profitable to add a runtime check given the size of > the loop. > > >

Hi Marcello, Thanks for your reply. I will try to pass down the mask! I have one more question. In my backend I return CSR_RegMask in getCallPreservedMask and return CSR_SaveList in getCalleeSavedRegs. Is that a correct setup? I dumped the regmask and found that callee saved regs are marked 1 and non-callee saved regs are 0. Thanks, Xiaochu On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 5:58 PM Marcello Maggioni