llvm dev - Nov 2015 - DFAPacketizer assert failure

>
> It's hard to make a guess based on that assertion alone.  Apparently
there
> is no transition in the DFA for these values.
>
> Do the arguments (e.g. CurrentState and FuncUnits) look reasonable?

FuncUnits = 0
CurrentState = 0
StateTrans = {first = 0, second = 0}

I understand that there is something wrong with the state machine but I
can't figure out what exactly. My scheduler description is the same as for
Hexagon or R600. So why would DFA would look any different for my target?
What could be the problem?

-- 
R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151116/491d5fc2/attachment.html>

On 11/16/2015 2:08 PM, Rail Shafigulin wrote:
>     It's hard to make a guess based on that assertion alone. 
Apparently
>     there is no transition in the DFA for these values.
>
>     Do the arguments (e.g. CurrentState and FuncUnits) look reasonable?
>
> FuncUnits = 0
> CurrentState = 0
> StateTrans = {first = 0, second = 0}
>
> I understand that there is something wrong with the state machine but I
> can't figure out what exactly. My scheduler description is the same as
> for Hexagon or R600. So why would DFA would look any different for my
> target? What could be the problem?
Does the instruction that is being added have an itinerary associated 
with it?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that your scheduler description 
is the same as for Hexagon or R600.  Those two are very different and 
whatever you have, it cannot be the same as both of them.

-Krzysztof

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

> Does the instruction that is being added have an itinerary associated with
> it?
>
> You are right, I don't know how I missed it. It is the CFI instruction.
I
don't remember giving it any itinerary.

> I'm not sure what you mean when you say that your scheduler description
is
> the same as for Hexagon or R600.  Those two are very different and whatever
> you have, it cannot be the same as both of them.
>
> Sorry for the confusion. I should have said that my description is similar
to Hexagon.
>
>
Thanks for the help,

R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151116/e3498115/attachment.html>

> Does the instruction that is being added have an itinerary associated with
> it?
>
So I checked again, and it turns out that it does have an itinerary
associated with it. However it is a pseudo instruction. Does the packetizer
do something special with the pseudo instructions? I didn't see any special
code, but I could have missed it.

--
R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151116/3497910c/attachment.html>