llvm dev - Nov 2013 - [LLVMdev] prevents instruction-scheduler from interfereing instruction pair

Amara,

first, thank you for answering.  but I found expandPsuedo instructions
actually happens before post-RA, like the following code showing:
your approach is a little hacky, right? : )

// Expand pseudo instructions before second scheduling pass.
  addPass(&ExpandPostRAPseudosID);
  printAndVerify("After ExpandPostRAPseudos");

  // Run pre-sched2 passes.
  if (addPreSched2())
    printAndVerify("After PreSched2 passes");

  // Second pass scheduler.
  if (getOptLevel() != CodeGenOpt::None) {
    addPass(&PostRASchedulerID);
    printAndVerify("After PostRAScheduler");
  }


secondly, psuedo instruction is kind of compiler internal representation. I
wish our instruction pair can disclose to programmer. intrinsics can do
that.

thanks,
--lx


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Amara Emerson <amara.emerson at
arm.com>wrote:
> What about describing the instruction pairs as pseudo-instructions, and
> then expanding them in a machine function pass at the pre-emit stage?
>
>
>
> Amara
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131123/88eb3f0f/attachment.html>

What I meant was to write your own expansion pass and run it after the
scheduler passes, e.g. in the pre-emit stage.
> if (addPreEmitPass())
    printAndVerify("After PreEmit passes")

Though if it's too hacky for you then fair enough.

Amara

On 23 November 2013 03:17, Liu Xin <navy.xliu at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Amara,
>
> first, thank you for answering.  but I found expandPsuedo instructions
> actually happens before post-RA, like the following code showing:
> your approach is a little hacky, right? : )
>
> // Expand pseudo instructions before second scheduling pass.
>   addPass(&ExpandPostRAPseudosID);
>   printAndVerify("After ExpandPostRAPseudos");
>
>   // Run pre-sched2 passes.
>   if (addPreSched2())
>     printAndVerify("After PreSched2 passes");
>
>   // Second pass scheduler.
>   if (getOptLevel() != CodeGenOpt::None) {
>     addPass(&PostRASchedulerID);
>     printAndVerify("After PostRAScheduler");
>   }
>
>
> secondly, psuedo instruction is kind of compiler internal representation. I
> wish our instruction pair can disclose to programmer. intrinsics can do
> that.
>
> thanks,
> --lx
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Amara Emerson <amara.emerson at
arm.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> What about describing the instruction pairs as pseudo-instructions, and
>> then expanding them in a machine function pass at the pre-emit stage?
>>
>>
>>
>> Amara
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

I think this after a second. I got your point. I can define a pseudo
instruction for an instr-pair and expand it after post-RA-sched. as you
said, in preEmitPass.

The original intrinsic can also be kept. I just convert the intrinsic to
pseudo instruction in TargetLower. Thank you for your enlightening
suggestion!

thanks,
--lx



On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Amara Emerson <amara.emerson at
gmail.com>wrote:
> What I meant was to write your own expansion pass and run it after the
> scheduler passes, e.g. in the pre-emit stage.
> > if (addPreEmitPass())
>     printAndVerify("After PreEmit passes")
>
> Though if it's too hacky for you then fair enough.
>
> Amara
>
> On 23 November 2013 03:17, Liu Xin <navy.xliu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Amara,
> >
> > first, thank you for answering.  but I found expandPsuedo instructions
> > actually happens before post-RA, like the following code showing:
> > your approach is a little hacky, right? : )
> >
> > // Expand pseudo instructions before second scheduling pass.
> >   addPass(&ExpandPostRAPseudosID);
> >   printAndVerify("After ExpandPostRAPseudos");
> >
> >   // Run pre-sched2 passes.
> >   if (addPreSched2())
> >     printAndVerify("After PreSched2 passes");
> >
> >   // Second pass scheduler.
> >   if (getOptLevel() != CodeGenOpt::None) {
> >     addPass(&PostRASchedulerID);
> >     printAndVerify("After PostRAScheduler");
> >   }
> >
> >
> > secondly, psuedo instruction is kind of compiler internal
> representation. I
> > wish our instruction pair can disclose to programmer. intrinsics can
do
> > that.
> >
> > thanks,
> > --lx
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Amara Emerson <amara.emerson at
arm.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> What about describing the instruction pairs as
pseudo-instructions, and
> >> then expanding them in a machine function pass at the pre-emit
stage?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Amara
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131123/2be2da0d/attachment.html>