llvm dev - Nov 2014 - [LLVMdev] Virtual register def doesn't dominate all uses

Hi Quentin,

 I added some debug output (N->dump()) in ::Select(SDNode*N) and compared it
to the dot/Graphviz output (-view-legalize-types-dags; the last one with correct
code). I found out, that some SDNodes are not passed to the ::Select(SDNode*N),
approximately 11 nodes are missing. The first add-node (v1+v2) is missing.

 Is it normal that not all nodes are passes to ::Select()?

Thanks,
Boris


Am 30.10.2014 um 19:23 schrieb Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>:
> Hi Boris,
> 
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Boris Boesler <baembel at gmx.de>
wrote:
> 
>> Hi Quentin,
>> 
>> yes, this happens quite late. With the Option --debug-pass=Structure
it's in or after "Assembly Printer".
>> I do have a very simple DAGToDAGISel::Select() method:
>> 
>> SDNode *MyTargetDAGToDAGISel::Select(SDNode *N)
>> {
>> SDLoc dl(N);
>> // default implementation
>> if (N -> isMachineOpcode()) {
>>   N -> setNodeId(-1);
>>   return NULL;   // Already selected.
>> }
>> SDNode *res = SelectCode(N);
>> return res;
>> }
>> 
>> Is that too simple? There are no further passes that eliminate
anything.
>> 
>> Anyway, I have another test program, that could point to my bug:
>> 
>> int formal_args_3(int p1, int p2, int p3)
>> {
>> int v1 = p1;
>> int v2 = p2;
>> int v3 = p3;
>> int res = v1 + v2;
>> return(res);
>> }
>> 
>> I can compile this test and I get correct code. With option
-view-sched-dags I can verify that all arguments are stored in the stack-frame,
the local variables are initialized (several store operations in stack-frame)
and the return value is evaluated.
>> 
>> But if I use the statement "int res = v1 + v2 + v3;"
something strange happens: all arguments are stored in the stack-frame and the
local variables are initialized. Now, the variables v1 and v2 are loaded, but
they are not used (no ADD instructions) and a MOVE instruction register to
register is generated that uses itself as an operand. This register should be
stored and should be used as function result.
>> 
>> Well, the LOAD instruction uses another register class for the
destination register than the ADD instruction uses for its operands, but both
classes share some registers. That should not be a problem.
> 
> Like you said, that shouldn’t be a problem.
> 
>> 
>> Any hints where I can search for my bug?
> 
> Try using -print-machineinstrs and check where the Machine IR diverge from
what you were expected.
> Then, you can use -debug-only <the offending pass> to have more
details.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Quentin
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Boris
>> 
>> 
>> Am 24.10.2014 um 19:27 schrieb Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com>:
>> 
>>> Hi Boris,
>>> 
>>> I don’t see any phis in your machine code whereas the IR had some.
This means you are already pretty late in the pipeline of the backend (i.e.,
after SSA form has been deconstructed).
>>> Do you have any custom pass between instruction selection and the
PHIElimination pass?
>>> 
>>> If so, I would look into them.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Quentin
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 24, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Boris Boesler <baembel at
gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi!
>>>> 
>>>> During my backend development I get the error message for some
tests:
>>>> *** Bad machine code: Virtual register def doesn't dominate
all uses. ***
>>>> 
>>>> (C source-code, byte-code disassembly and printed machine code
at the end of the email)
>>>> 
>>>> The first USE of vreg4 in BB#1 has no previous DEF in BB#0 or
#1. But why? I can't see how the LLVM byte-code is transformed to the lower
machine code.
>>>> 
>>>> One possible reason could be that I haven't implemented all
operations, eg I didn't implement MUL at this stage. Their "state"
is LEGAL and not CUSTOM or EXPAND. But it fails with implemented operations as
well.
>>>> 
>>>> What did I do wrong? Missing implementation for some
operations? What did I miss to implement?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> Boris
>>>> 
>>>> ----8<----
>>>> 
>>>> C source-code:
>>>> int simple_loop(int end_loop_index)
>>>> {
>>>> int sum = 0;
>>>> for(int i = 0; i < end_loop_index; i++) {
>>>> sum += i;
>>>> }
>>>> return(sum);
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> LLVm byte-code disassembly:
>>>> ; Function Attrs: nounwind readnone
>>>> define i32 @simple_loop(i32 %end_loop_index) #1 {
>>>> entry:
>>>> %cmp4 = icmp sgt i32 %end_loop_index, 0
>>>> br i1 %cmp4, label %for.cond.for.end_crit_edge, label %for.end
>>>> 
>>>> for.cond.for.end_crit_edge:                       ; preds =
%entry
>>>> %0 = add i32 %end_loop_index, -2
>>>> %1 = add i32 %end_loop_index, -1
>>>> %2 = zext i32 %0 to i33
>>>> %3 = zext i32 %1 to i33
>>>> %4 = mul i33 %3, %2
>>>> %5 = lshr i33 %4, 1
>>>> %6 = trunc i33 %5 to i32
>>>> %7 = add i32 %6, %end_loop_index
>>>> %8 = add i32 %7, -1
>>>> br label %for.end
>>>> 
>>>> for.end:                                          ; preds =
%for.cond.for.end_crit_edge, %entry
>>>> %sum.0.lcssa = phi i32 [ %8, %for.cond.for.end_crit_edge ], [
0, %entry ]
>>>> ret i32 %sum.0.lcssa
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The emitted blocks are:
>>>> Function Live Ins: %R0 in %vreg2
>>>> 
>>>> BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
>>>> Live Ins: %R0
>>>> 	%vreg2<def> = COPY %R0; IntRegs:%vreg2
>>>> 	%vreg3<def> = MV 0; SRegs:%vreg3
>>>> 	CMP %vreg2, 1, %FLAG<imp-def>; IntRegs:%vreg2
>>>> 	%vreg6<def> = COPY %vreg3; SRegs:%vreg6,%vreg3
>>>> 	BR_cc <BB#2>, 20, %FLAG<imp-use,kill>
>>>> 	BR <BB#1>
>>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#1(20) BB#2(12)
>>>> 
>>>> BB#1: derived from LLVM BB %for.cond.for.end_crit_edge
>>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#0
>>>> 	%vreg4<def> = MV %vreg4; IntRegs:%vreg4
>>>> 	%vreg5<def> = ADD %vreg4<kill>, -1;
IntRegs:%vreg5,%vreg4
>>>> 	%vreg0<def> = COPY %vreg5<kill>; SRegs:%vreg0
IntRegs:%vreg5
>>>> 	%vreg6<def> = COPY %vreg0; SRegs:%vreg6,%vreg0
>>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#2
>>>> 
>>>> BB#2: derived from LLVM BB %for.end
>>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#0 BB#1
>>>> 	%vreg1<def> = COPY %vreg6<kill>;
SRegs:%vreg1,%vreg6
>>>> 	%R0<def> = COPY %vreg1; SRegs:%vreg1
>>>> 	RETURN %R0<imp-use>
>>>> 
>>>> # End machine code for function simple_loop.
>>>> 
>>>> *** Bad machine code: Virtual register def doesn't dominate
all uses. ***
>>>> - function:    simple_loop
>>>> - basic block: BB#1 for.cond.for.end_crit_edge (0x7fd7cb025250)
>>>> - instruction: %vreg4<def> = MV %vreg4; IntRegs:%vreg4
>>>> LLVM ERROR: Found 1 machine code errors.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> 
>> 
>

On Oct 31, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Boris Boesler <baembel at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
> 
> I added some debug output (N->dump()) in ::Select(SDNode*N) and compared
it to the dot/Graphviz output (-view-legalize-types-dags; the last one with
correct code). I found out, that some SDNodes are not passed to the
::Select(SDNode*N), approximately 11 nodes are missing. The first add-node
(v1+v2) is missing.
> 
> Is it normal that not all nodes are passes to ::Select()?
> 
Does not sound right!

They should be selected, unless they are dead (i.e., no uses).

Have you looked to the others dag (view-isel-dags in particular).

-Quentin
> Thanks,
> Boris
> 
> 
> Am 30.10.2014 um 19:23 schrieb Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com>:
> 
>> Hi Boris,
>> 
>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Boris Boesler <baembel at gmx.de>
wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Quentin,
>>> 
>>> yes, this happens quite late. With the Option
--debug-pass=Structure it's in or after "Assembly Printer".
>>> I do have a very simple DAGToDAGISel::Select() method:
>>> 
>>> SDNode *MyTargetDAGToDAGISel::Select(SDNode *N)
>>> {
>>> SDLoc dl(N);
>>> // default implementation
>>> if (N -> isMachineOpcode()) {
>>>  N -> setNodeId(-1);
>>>  return NULL;   // Already selected.
>>> }
>>> SDNode *res = SelectCode(N);
>>> return res;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Is that too simple? There are no further passes that eliminate
anything.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, I have another test program, that could point to my bug:
>>> 
>>> int formal_args_3(int p1, int p2, int p3)
>>> {
>>> int v1 = p1;
>>> int v2 = p2;
>>> int v3 = p3;
>>> int res = v1 + v2;
>>> return(res);
>>> }
>>> 
>>> I can compile this test and I get correct code. With option
-view-sched-dags I can verify that all arguments are stored in the stack-frame,
the local variables are initialized (several store operations in stack-frame)
and the return value is evaluated.
>>> 
>>> But if I use the statement "int res = v1 + v2 + v3;"
something strange happens: all arguments are stored in the stack-frame and the
local variables are initialized. Now, the variables v1 and v2 are loaded, but
they are not used (no ADD instructions) and a MOVE instruction register to
register is generated that uses itself as an operand. This register should be
stored and should be used as function result.
>>> 
>>> Well, the LOAD instruction uses another register class for the
destination register than the ADD instruction uses for its operands, but both
classes share some registers. That should not be a problem.
>> 
>> Like you said, that shouldn’t be a problem.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Any hints where I can search for my bug?
>> 
>> Try using -print-machineinstrs and check where the Machine IR diverge
from what you were expected.
>> Then, you can use -debug-only <the offending pass> to have more
details.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -Quentin
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Boris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 19:27 schrieb Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com>:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Boris,
>>>> 
>>>> I don’t see any phis in your machine code whereas the IR had
some. This means you are already pretty late in the pipeline of the backend
(i.e., after SSA form has been deconstructed).
>>>> Do you have any custom pass between instruction selection and
the PHIElimination pass?
>>>> 
>>>> If so, I would look into them.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Quentin
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 24, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Boris Boesler <baembel at
gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>> 
>>>>> During my backend development I get the error message for
some tests:
>>>>> *** Bad machine code: Virtual register def doesn't
dominate all uses. ***
>>>>> 
>>>>> (C source-code, byte-code disassembly and printed machine
code at the end of the email)
>>>>> 
>>>>> The first USE of vreg4 in BB#1 has no previous DEF in BB#0
or #1. But why? I can't see how the LLVM byte-code is transformed to the
lower machine code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One possible reason could be that I haven't implemented
all operations, eg I didn't implement MUL at this stage. Their
"state" is LEGAL and not CUSTOM or EXPAND. But it fails with
implemented operations as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What did I do wrong? Missing implementation for some
operations? What did I miss to implement?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>> Boris
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----8<----
>>>>> 
>>>>> C source-code:
>>>>> int simple_loop(int end_loop_index)
>>>>> {
>>>>> int sum = 0;
>>>>> for(int i = 0; i < end_loop_index; i++) {
>>>>> sum += i;
>>>>> }
>>>>> return(sum);
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> LLVm byte-code disassembly:
>>>>> ; Function Attrs: nounwind readnone
>>>>> define i32 @simple_loop(i32 %end_loop_index) #1 {
>>>>> entry:
>>>>> %cmp4 = icmp sgt i32 %end_loop_index, 0
>>>>> br i1 %cmp4, label %for.cond.for.end_crit_edge, label
%for.end
>>>>> 
>>>>> for.cond.for.end_crit_edge:                       ; preds =
%entry
>>>>> %0 = add i32 %end_loop_index, -2
>>>>> %1 = add i32 %end_loop_index, -1
>>>>> %2 = zext i32 %0 to i33
>>>>> %3 = zext i32 %1 to i33
>>>>> %4 = mul i33 %3, %2
>>>>> %5 = lshr i33 %4, 1
>>>>> %6 = trunc i33 %5 to i32
>>>>> %7 = add i32 %6, %end_loop_index
>>>>> %8 = add i32 %7, -1
>>>>> br label %for.end
>>>>> 
>>>>> for.end:                                          ; preds =
%for.cond.for.end_crit_edge, %entry
>>>>> %sum.0.lcssa = phi i32 [ %8, %for.cond.for.end_crit_edge ],
[ 0, %entry ]
>>>>> ret i32 %sum.0.lcssa
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The emitted blocks are:
>>>>> Function Live Ins: %R0 in %vreg2
>>>>> 
>>>>> BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
>>>>> Live Ins: %R0
>>>>> 	%vreg2<def> = COPY %R0; IntRegs:%vreg2
>>>>> 	%vreg3<def> = MV 0; SRegs:%vreg3
>>>>> 	CMP %vreg2, 1, %FLAG<imp-def>; IntRegs:%vreg2
>>>>> 	%vreg6<def> = COPY %vreg3; SRegs:%vreg6,%vreg3
>>>>> 	BR_cc <BB#2>, 20, %FLAG<imp-use,kill>
>>>>> 	BR <BB#1>
>>>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#1(20) BB#2(12)
>>>>> 
>>>>> BB#1: derived from LLVM BB %for.cond.for.end_crit_edge
>>>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#0
>>>>> 	%vreg4<def> = MV %vreg4; IntRegs:%vreg4
>>>>> 	%vreg5<def> = ADD %vreg4<kill>, -1;
IntRegs:%vreg5,%vreg4
>>>>> 	%vreg0<def> = COPY %vreg5<kill>; SRegs:%vreg0
IntRegs:%vreg5
>>>>> 	%vreg6<def> = COPY %vreg0; SRegs:%vreg6,%vreg0
>>>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#2
>>>>> 
>>>>> BB#2: derived from LLVM BB %for.end
>>>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#0 BB#1
>>>>> 	%vreg1<def> = COPY %vreg6<kill>;
SRegs:%vreg1,%vreg6
>>>>> 	%R0<def> = COPY %vreg1; SRegs:%vreg1
>>>>> 	RETURN %R0<imp-use>
>>>>> 
>>>>> # End machine code for function simple_loop.
>>>>> 
>>>>> *** Bad machine code: Virtual register def doesn't
dominate all uses. ***
>>>>> - function:    simple_loop
>>>>> - basic block: BB#1 for.cond.for.end_crit_edge
(0x7fd7cb025250)
>>>>> - instruction: %vreg4<def> = MV %vreg4;
IntRegs:%vreg4
>>>>> LLVM ERROR: Found 1 machine code errors.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>

Hi Quentin,

Am 01.11.2014 um 00:39 schrieb Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>:
> 
> On Oct 31, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Boris Boesler <baembel at gmx.de>
wrote:
> 
>> Hi Quentin,
>> 
>> I added some debug output (N->dump()) in ::Select(SDNode*N) and
compared it to the dot/Graphviz output (-view-legalize-types-dags; the last one
with correct code). I found out, that some SDNodes are not passed to the
::Select(SDNode*N), approximately 11 nodes are missing. The first add-node
(v1+v2) is missing.
>> 
>> Is it normal that not all nodes are passes to ::Select()?
>> 
> 
> Does not sound right!
> 
> They should be selected, unless they are dead (i.e., no uses).
> 
> Have you looked to the others dag (view-isel-dags in particular).
 Yes, the dags in view-isel-dags and view-legalize-types-dags are correct (the
add operations are here and are their results are used) and the dags are the
same.

Boris
> 
> -Quentin
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Boris
>> 
>> 
>> Am 30.10.2014 um 19:23 schrieb Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com>:
>> 
>>> Hi Boris,
>>> 
>>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Boris Boesler <baembel at
gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Quentin,
>>>> 
>>>> yes, this happens quite late. With the Option
--debug-pass=Structure it's in or after "Assembly Printer".
>>>> I do have a very simple DAGToDAGISel::Select() method:
>>>> 
>>>> SDNode *MyTargetDAGToDAGISel::Select(SDNode *N)
>>>> {
>>>> SDLoc dl(N);
>>>> // default implementation
>>>> if (N -> isMachineOpcode()) {
>>>> N -> setNodeId(-1);
>>>> return NULL;   // Already selected.
>>>> }
>>>> SDNode *res = SelectCode(N);
>>>> return res;
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> Is that too simple? There are no further passes that eliminate
anything.
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway, I have another test program, that could point to my
bug:
>>>> 
>>>> int formal_args_3(int p1, int p2, int p3)
>>>> {
>>>> int v1 = p1;
>>>> int v2 = p2;
>>>> int v3 = p3;
>>>> int res = v1 + v2;
>>>> return(res);
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> I can compile this test and I get correct code. With option
-view-sched-dags I can verify that all arguments are stored in the stack-frame,
the local variables are initialized (several store operations in stack-frame)
and the return value is evaluated.
>>>> 
>>>> But if I use the statement "int res = v1 + v2 + v3;"
something strange happens: all arguments are stored in the stack-frame and the
local variables are initialized. Now, the variables v1 and v2 are loaded, but
they are not used (no ADD instructions) and a MOVE instruction register to
register is generated that uses itself as an operand. This register should be
stored and should be used as function result.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, the LOAD instruction uses another register class for the
destination register than the ADD instruction uses for its operands, but both
classes share some registers. That should not be a problem.
>>> 
>>> Like you said, that shouldn’t be a problem.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Any hints where I can search for my bug?
>>> 
>>> Try using -print-machineinstrs and check where the Machine IR
diverge from what you were expected.
>>> Then, you can use -debug-only <the offending pass> to have
more details.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Quentin
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Boris
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 19:27 schrieb Quentin Colombet <qcolombet
at apple.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Boris,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don’t see any phis in your machine code whereas the IR
had some. This means you are already pretty late in the pipeline of the backend
(i.e., after SSA form has been deconstructed).
>>>>> Do you have any custom pass between instruction selection
and the PHIElimination pass?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If so, I would look into them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Quentin
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Boris Boesler <baembel
at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> During my backend development I get the error message
for some tests:
>>>>>> *** Bad machine code: Virtual register def doesn't
dominate all uses. ***
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (C source-code, byte-code disassembly and printed
machine code at the end of the email)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The first USE of vreg4 in BB#1 has no previous DEF in
BB#0 or #1. But why? I can't see how the LLVM byte-code is transformed to
the lower machine code.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One possible reason could be that I haven't
implemented all operations, eg I didn't implement MUL at this stage. Their
"state" is LEGAL and not CUSTOM or EXPAND. But it fails with
implemented operations as well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What did I do wrong? Missing implementation for some
operations? What did I miss to implement?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>> Boris
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----8<----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> C source-code:
>>>>>> int simple_loop(int end_loop_index)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int sum = 0;
>>>>>> for(int i = 0; i < end_loop_index; i++) {
>>>>>> sum += i;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> return(sum);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> LLVm byte-code disassembly:
>>>>>> ; Function Attrs: nounwind readnone
>>>>>> define i32 @simple_loop(i32 %end_loop_index) #1 {
>>>>>> entry:
>>>>>> %cmp4 = icmp sgt i32 %end_loop_index, 0
>>>>>> br i1 %cmp4, label %for.cond.for.end_crit_edge, label
%for.end
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> for.cond.for.end_crit_edge:                       ;
preds = %entry
>>>>>> %0 = add i32 %end_loop_index, -2
>>>>>> %1 = add i32 %end_loop_index, -1
>>>>>> %2 = zext i32 %0 to i33
>>>>>> %3 = zext i32 %1 to i33
>>>>>> %4 = mul i33 %3, %2
>>>>>> %5 = lshr i33 %4, 1
>>>>>> %6 = trunc i33 %5 to i32
>>>>>> %7 = add i32 %6, %end_loop_index
>>>>>> %8 = add i32 %7, -1
>>>>>> br label %for.end
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> for.end:                                          ;
preds = %for.cond.for.end_crit_edge, %entry
>>>>>> %sum.0.lcssa = phi i32 [ %8,
%for.cond.for.end_crit_edge ], [ 0, %entry ]
>>>>>> ret i32 %sum.0.lcssa
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The emitted blocks are:
>>>>>> Function Live Ins: %R0 in %vreg2
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
>>>>>> Live Ins: %R0
>>>>>> 	%vreg2<def> = COPY %R0; IntRegs:%vreg2
>>>>>> 	%vreg3<def> = MV 0; SRegs:%vreg3
>>>>>> 	CMP %vreg2, 1, %FLAG<imp-def>; IntRegs:%vreg2
>>>>>> 	%vreg6<def> = COPY %vreg3; SRegs:%vreg6,%vreg3
>>>>>> 	BR_cc <BB#2>, 20, %FLAG<imp-use,kill>
>>>>>> 	BR <BB#1>
>>>>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#1(20) BB#2(12)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BB#1: derived from LLVM BB %for.cond.for.end_crit_edge
>>>>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#0
>>>>>> 	%vreg4<def> = MV %vreg4; IntRegs:%vreg4
>>>>>> 	%vreg5<def> = ADD %vreg4<kill>, -1;
IntRegs:%vreg5,%vreg4
>>>>>> 	%vreg0<def> = COPY %vreg5<kill>;
SRegs:%vreg0 IntRegs:%vreg5
>>>>>> 	%vreg6<def> = COPY %vreg0; SRegs:%vreg6,%vreg0
>>>>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#2
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BB#2: derived from LLVM BB %for.end
>>>>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#0 BB#1
>>>>>> 	%vreg1<def> = COPY %vreg6<kill>;
SRegs:%vreg1,%vreg6
>>>>>> 	%R0<def> = COPY %vreg1; SRegs:%vreg1
>>>>>> 	RETURN %R0<imp-use>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> # End machine code for function simple_loop.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *** Bad machine code: Virtual register def doesn't
dominate all uses. ***
>>>>>> - function:    simple_loop
>>>>>> - basic block: BB#1 for.cond.for.end_crit_edge
(0x7fd7cb025250)
>>>>>> - instruction: %vreg4<def> = MV %vreg4;
IntRegs:%vreg4
>>>>>> LLVM ERROR: Found 1 machine code errors.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>