llvm dev - Mar 2009 - [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [llvm] r65296 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/CodeGen/ lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ lib/Target/CellSPU/ lib/Target/PowerPC/ lib/Target/X86/ test/CodeGen/X86/

Things are still broken. Unfortunately llvm test suite does not  
contain enough vector code to fully test this. Can you revert the  
patch first?

Evan

On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Scott Michel wrote:
> Evan:
>
> I did not encounter this back trace before I committed the newest  
> BuildVectorSDNode patch, which removed all class instance members  
> and passes results back via reference parameters.
>
>
> -scooter
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at
apple.com>
> wrote:
> I believe this patch has broken a PPC app that I am tracking. Here  
> is a reduced test case. Reproduce with llc -mattr=+Altivec -mcpu=g5.  
> The backtrace looks like this:
>
> #0  0x9333ae42 in __kill ()
> #1  0x9333ae34 in kill$UNIX2003 ()
> #2  0x933ad23a in raise ()
> #3  0x933b9679 in abort ()
> #4  0x933ae3db in __assert_rtn ()
> #5  0x0008bd8f in llvm::MVT::getVectorElementType (this=0xbfffdda4)  
> at ValueTypes.h:317
> #6  0x002aed06 in BuildSplatI (Val=0, SplatSize=8, VT={{V = 24,  
> SimpleTy = llvm::MVT::v4i32, LLVMTy = 0x18}}, DAG=@0x16088a0,  
> dl={Idx = 4294967295}) at PPCISelLowering.cpp:311\
> 5
> #7  0x002afae4 in llvm::PPCTargetLowering::LowerBUILD_VECTOR  
> (this=0x1803d58, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0)  
> at PPCISelLowering.cpp:3200
> #8  0x002bb54f in llvm::PPCTargetLowering::LowerOperation  
> (this=0x1803d58, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0)  
> at PPCISelLowering.cpp:3766
> #9  0x0051bed6 in (anonymous  
> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp (this=0xbffff0e8,  
> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:1608
> #10 0x0054837d in (anonymous  
> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp (this=0xbffff0e8,  
> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:519
> #11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous  
> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG (this=0xbffff0e8) at  
> LegalizeDAG.cpp:389
> #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0,  
> TypesNeedLegalizing=false, Fast=false) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:8648
> #13 0x005ec313 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG  
> (this=0x1608780) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:626
> #14 0x005ee7e2 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock  
> (this=0x1608780, LLVMBB=0x1603fa0,  
> Begin={<bidirectional_iterator<llvm::Instruction,int>> =  
> {<std::iterator<std::bid\
> irectional_iterator_tag 
> ,llvm::Instruction,int,llvm::Instruction*,llvm::Instruction&>> =
> {<No data fields>}, <No data fields>}, NodePtr = 0x1604dd0},  
> End={<bidirectional_iterat\
> or<llvm::Instruction,int>> =  
> {< 
> std 
> ::iterator 
> < 
> std 
> ::bidirectional_iterator_tag 
> ,llvm::Instruction,int,llvm::Instruction*,llvm::Instruction&>> =
> {<No data fields>}, <No data field\
> s>}, NodePtr = 0x16049e0}) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:500
> #15 0x005ef123 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectAllBasicBlocks  
> (this=0x1608780, Fn=@0x1603720, MF=@0x160d520, MMI=0x160bbd0,  
> DW=0x1608fe0, TII=@0x1803ce0) at SelectionDAGISel.\
> cpp:856
> #16 0x005efe54 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::runOnFunction  
> (this=0x1608780, Fn=@0x1603720) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:327
> #17 0x002a3aea in (anonymous  
> namespace)::PPCDAGToDAGISel::runOnFunction (this=0x1608780,  
> Fn=@0x1603720) at PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp:54
> #18 0x00874127 in llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction  
> (this=0x1606610, F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1323
> #19 0x0087464c in llvm::FunctionPassManagerImpl::run  
> (this=0x1606410, F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1281
> #20 0x008747da in llvm::FunctionPassManager::run (this=0xbffff520,  
> F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1226
> #21 0x0000352e in main (argc=6, argv=0xbffff5d0) at llc.cpp:317
>
>
>
> Evan
>
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Scott Michel wrote:
>
>> Duncan:
>>
>> I'm still stymied how this whole thread ended up about shuffle  
>> vector nodes, when the original problem was my build vector patch.  
>> I'm still working on backing the build vector patch out (it
isn't
>> clean with all of the intervening commits and I have pressing  
>> management tasks which command my attention.)
>>
>>
>> -scooter
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at
free.fr>
>> wrote:
>> > 3. Introduce a new ShuffleVectorSDNode that only has two SDValue
>> > operands (the two input vectors), but that also contains an array
>> of
>> > ints in the node (not as operands).
>> ...
>> > The important part of #3 is that we really want an array of ints
>> > (using -1 for undef) for the shuffle mask, not
"operands".  This
>> > eliminates the nastiness we have now were we need a buildvector,  
>> and
>> > it eliminates the dance we have to prevent the build vector from  
>> being
>> > legalized, and prevent the integer operands to it from being  
>> legalized.
>>
>> This is PR2957 (which originally suggested a variadic SDNode, but it
>> quickly became clear that an array of ints is better).  It would be
>> great to have a volunteer for this (I don't have time).
>>
>> Ciao,
>>
>> Duncan.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090225/d5fd6ecf/attachment.html>

Evan:

I work on reverting it, although, when I tried yesterday, it wasn't
particularly clean (lots of rejected patches, presumably due to intervening
commits.)

Are you still getting the backtrace or is this just a case of incorrectly
generated code?


-scooter

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com> wrote:
> Things are still broken. Unfortunately llvm test suite does not contain
> enough vector code to fully test this. Can you revert the patch first?
> Evan
>
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Scott Michel wrote:
>
> Evan:
>
> I did not encounter this back trace before I committed the newest
> BuildVectorSDNode patch, which removed all class instance members and
passes
> results back via reference parameters.
>
>
> -scooter
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at
apple.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe this patch has broken a PPC app that I am tracking. Here is a
>> reduced test case. Reproduce with llc -mattr=+Altivec -mcpu=g5. The
>> backtrace looks like this:
>> #0  0x9333ae42 in __kill ()
>> #1  0x9333ae34 in kill$UNIX2003 ()
>> #2  0x933ad23a in raise ()
>> #3  0x933b9679 in abort ()
>> #4  0x933ae3db in __assert_rtn ()
>> #5  0x0008bd8f in llvm::MVT::getVectorElementType (this=0xbfffdda4) at
>> ValueTypes.h:317
>> #6  0x002aed06 in BuildSplatI (Val=0, SplatSize=8, VT={{V = 24,
SimpleTy >> llvm::MVT::v4i32, LLVMTy = 0x18}}, DAG=@0x16088a0, dl={Idx =
4294967295}) at
>> PPCISelLowering.cpp:311\
>> 5
>> #7  0x002afae4 in llvm::PPCTargetLowering::LowerBUILD_VECTOR
>> (this=0x1803d58, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0) at
>> PPCISelLowering.cpp:3200
>> #8  0x002bb54f in llvm::PPCTargetLowering::LowerOperation
(this=0x1803d58,
>> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0) at
>> PPCISelLowering.cpp:3766
>> #9  0x0051bed6 in (anonymous
namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp
>> (this=0xbffff0e8, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at
LegalizeDAG.cpp:1608
>> #10 0x0054837d in (anonymous namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp
>> (this=0xbffff0e8, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at
LegalizeDAG.cpp:519
>> #11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous
namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG
>> (this=0xbffff0e8) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:389
>> #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0,
>> TypesNeedLegalizing=false, Fast=false) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:8648
>> #13 0x005ec313 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG
>> (this=0x1608780) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:626
>> #14 0x005ee7e2 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock
>> (this=0x1608780, LLVMBB=0x1603fa0,
>> Begin={<bidirectional_iterator<llvm::Instruction,int>>
>> {<std::iterator<std::bid\
>>
irectional_iterator_tag,llvm::Instruction,int,llvm::Instruction*,llvm::Instruction&>>
>> = {<No data fields>}, <No data fields>}, NodePtr =
0x1604dd0},
>> End={<bidirectional_iterat\
>> or<llvm::Instruction,int>> >>
{<std::iterator<std::bidirectional_iterator_tag,llvm::Instruction,int,llvm::Instruction*,llvm::Instruction&>>
>> = {<No data fields>}, <No data field\
>> s>}, NodePtr = 0x16049e0}) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:500
>> #15 0x005ef123 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectAllBasicBlocks
>> (this=0x1608780, Fn=@0x1603720, MF=@0x160d520, MMI=0x160bbd0,
DW=0x1608fe0,
>> TII=@0x1803ce0) at SelectionDAGISel.\
>> cpp:856
>> #16 0x005efe54 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::runOnFunction
(this=0x1608780,
>> Fn=@0x1603720) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:327
>> #17 0x002a3aea in (anonymous namespace)::PPCDAGToDAGISel::runOnFunction
>> (this=0x1608780, Fn=@0x1603720) at PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp:54
>> #18 0x00874127 in llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction (this=0x1606610,
>> F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1323
>> #19 0x0087464c in llvm::FunctionPassManagerImpl::run (this=0x1606410,
>> F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1281
>> #20 0x008747da in llvm::FunctionPassManager::run (this=0xbffff520,
>> F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1226
>> #21 0x0000352e in main (argc=6, argv=0xbffff5d0) at llc.cpp:317
>>
>>
>>
>> Evan
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Scott Michel wrote:
>>
>> Duncan:
>>
>> I'm still stymied how this whole thread ended up about shuffle
vector
>> nodes, when the original problem was my build vector patch. I'm
still
>> working on backing the build vector patch out (it isn't clean with
all of
>> the intervening commits and I have pressing management tasks which
command
>> my attention.)
>>
>>
>> -scooter
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at
free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> > 3. Introduce a new ShuffleVectorSDNode that only has two
SDValue
>>> > operands (the two input vectors), but that also contains an
array of
>>> > ints in the node (not as operands).
>>> ...
>>>  > The important part of #3 is that we really want an array of
ints
>>> > (using -1 for undef) for the shuffle mask, not
"operands".  This
>>> > eliminates the nastiness we have now were we need a
buildvector, and
>>> > it eliminates the dance we have to prevent the build vector
from being
>>> > legalized, and prevent the integer operands to it from being
legalized.
>>>
>>> This is PR2957 (which originally suggested a variadic SDNode, but
it
>>> quickly became clear that an array of ints is better).  It would be
>>> great to have a volunteer for this (I don't have time).
>>>
>>> Ciao,
>>>
>>> Duncan.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090225/3845d332/attachment.html>

I've reverted them for you. Thanks.

Evan

On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Scott Michel wrote:
> Evan:
>
> I work on reverting it, although, when I tried yesterday, it wasn't  
> particularly clean (lots of rejected patches, presumably due to  
> intervening commits.)
>
> Are you still getting the backtrace or is this just a case of  
> incorrectly generated code?
>
>
> -scooter
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>
wrote:
> Things are still broken. Unfortunately llvm test suite does not  
> contain enough vector code to fully test this. Can you revert the  
> patch first?
>
> Evan
>
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Scott Michel wrote:
>
>> Evan:
>>
>> I did not encounter this back trace before I committed the newest  
>> BuildVectorSDNode patch, which removed all class instance members  
>> and passes results back via reference parameters.
>>
>>
>> -scooter
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at
apple.com>
>> wrote:
>> I believe this patch has broken a PPC app that I am tracking. Here  
>> is a reduced test case. Reproduce with llc -mattr=+Altivec - 
>> mcpu=g5. The backtrace looks like this:
>>
>> #0  0x9333ae42 in __kill ()
>> #1  0x9333ae34 in kill$UNIX2003 ()
>> #2  0x933ad23a in raise ()
>> #3  0x933b9679 in abort ()
>> #4  0x933ae3db in __assert_rtn ()
>> #5  0x0008bd8f in llvm::MVT::getVectorElementType (this=0xbfffdda4)  
>> at ValueTypes.h:317
>> #6  0x002aed06 in BuildSplatI (Val=0, SplatSize=8, VT={{V = 24,  
>> SimpleTy = llvm::MVT::v4i32, LLVMTy = 0x18}}, DAG=@0x16088a0,  
>> dl={Idx = 4294967295}) at PPCISelLowering.cpp:311\
>> 5
>> #7  0x002afae4 in llvm::PPCTargetLowering::LowerBUILD_VECTOR  
>> (this=0x1803d58, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0)  
>> at PPCISelLowering.cpp:3200
>> #8  0x002bb54f in llvm::PPCTargetLowering::LowerOperation  
>> (this=0x1803d58, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0)  
>> at PPCISelLowering.cpp:3766
>> #9  0x0051bed6 in (anonymous  
>> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp (this=0xbffff0e8,  
>> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:1608
>> #10 0x0054837d in (anonymous  
>> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp (this=0xbffff0e8,  
>> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:519
>> #11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous  
>> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG (this=0xbffff0e8) at  
>> LegalizeDAG.cpp:389
>> #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0,  
>> TypesNeedLegalizing=false, Fast=false) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:8648
>> #13 0x005ec313 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG  
>> (this=0x1608780) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:626
>> #14 0x005ee7e2 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock  
>> (this=0x1608780, LLVMBB=0x1603fa0,  
>> Begin={<bidirectional_iterator<llvm::Instruction,int>> =  
>> {<std::iterator<std::bid\
>> irectional_iterator_tag 
>>
,llvm::Instruction,int,llvm::Instruction*,llvm::Instruction&>> =
>> {<No data fields>}, <No data fields>}, NodePtr =
0x1604dd0},
>> End={<bidirectional_iterat\
>> or<llvm::Instruction,int>> =  
>> {< 
>> std 
>> ::iterator 
>> < 
>> std 
>> ::bidirectional_iterator_tag 
>>
,llvm::Instruction,int,llvm::Instruction*,llvm::Instruction&>> =
>> {<No data fields>}, <No data field\
>> s>}, NodePtr = 0x16049e0}) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:500
>> #15 0x005ef123 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectAllBasicBlocks  
>> (this=0x1608780, Fn=@0x1603720, MF=@0x160d520, MMI=0x160bbd0,  
>> DW=0x1608fe0, TII=@0x1803ce0) at SelectionDAGISel.\
>> cpp:856
>> #16 0x005efe54 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::runOnFunction  
>> (this=0x1608780, Fn=@0x1603720) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:327
>> #17 0x002a3aea in (anonymous  
>> namespace)::PPCDAGToDAGISel::runOnFunction (this=0x1608780,  
>> Fn=@0x1603720) at PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp:54
>> #18 0x00874127 in llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction  
>> (this=0x1606610, F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1323
>> #19 0x0087464c in llvm::FunctionPassManagerImpl::run  
>> (this=0x1606410, F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1281
>> #20 0x008747da in llvm::FunctionPassManager::run (this=0xbffff520,  
>> F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1226
>> #21 0x0000352e in main (argc=6, argv=0xbffff5d0) at llc.cpp:317
>>
>>
>>
>> Evan
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Scott Michel wrote:
>>
>>> Duncan:
>>>
>>> I'm still stymied how this whole thread ended up about shuffle
>>> vector nodes, when the original problem was my build vector patch.
>>> I'm still working on backing the build vector patch out (it
isn't
>>> clean with all of the intervening commits and I have pressing  
>>> management tasks which command my attention.)
>>>
>>>
>>> -scooter
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at
free.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>> > 3. Introduce a new ShuffleVectorSDNode that only has two
SDValue
>>> > operands (the two input vectors), but that also contains an  
>>> array of
>>> > ints in the node (not as operands).
>>> ...
>>> > The important part of #3 is that we really want an array of
ints
>>> > (using -1 for undef) for the shuffle mask, not
"operands".  This
>>> > eliminates the nastiness we have now were we need a
buildvector,
>>> and
>>> > it eliminates the dance we have to prevent the build vector
from
>>> being
>>> > legalized, and prevent the integer operands to it from being  
>>> legalized.
>>>
>>> This is PR2957 (which originally suggested a variadic SDNode, but
it
>>> quickly became clear that an array of ints is better).  It would be
>>> great to have a volunteer for this (I don't have time).
>>>
>>> Ciao,
>>>
>>> Duncan.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090225/a079d00f/attachment.html>

Scott,

In case you missed it, I reimplemented your  
BuildVectorSDNode::isConstantSplat method following the suggestions  
from Chris.  The revised version passes "make check" for llvm.   
Assuming that it also passes Evan's tests, I think it should also do  
what you need for CellSPU.

On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Scott Michel wrote:
> Evan:
>
> I work on reverting it, although, when I tried yesterday, it wasn't  
> particularly clean (lots of rejected patches, presumably due to  
> intervening commits.)
>
> Are you still getting the backtrace or is this just a case of  
> incorrectly generated code?
>
>
> -scooter
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>
wrote:
> Things are still broken. Unfortunately llvm test suite does not  
> contain enough vector code to fully test this. Can you revert the  
> patch first?
>
> Evan
>
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Scott Michel wrote:
>
>> Evan:
>>
>> I did not encounter this back trace before I committed the newest  
>> BuildVectorSDNode patch, which removed all class instance members  
>> and passes results back via reference parameters.
>>
>>
>> -scooter
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at
apple.com>
>> wrote:
>> I believe this patch has broken a PPC app that I am tracking. Here  
>> is a reduced test case. Reproduce with llc -mattr=+Altivec - 
>> mcpu=g5. The backtrace looks like this:
>>
>> #0  0x9333ae42 in __kill ()
>> #1  0x9333ae34 in kill$UNIX2003 ()
>> #2  0x933ad23a in raise ()
>> #3  0x933b9679 in abort ()
>> #4  0x933ae3db in __assert_rtn ()
>> #5  0x0008bd8f in llvm::MVT::getVectorElementType (this=0xbfffdda4)  
>> at ValueTypes.h:317
>> #6  0x002aed06 in BuildSplatI (Val=0, SplatSize=8, VT={{V = 24,  
>> SimpleTy = llvm::MVT::v4i32, LLVMTy = 0x18}}, DAG=@0x16088a0,  
>> dl={Idx = 4294967295}) at PPCISelLowering.cpp:311\
>> 5
>> #7  0x002afae4 in llvm::PPCTargetLowering::LowerBUILD_VECTOR  
>> (this=0x1803d58, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0)  
>> at PPCISelLowering.cpp:3200
>> #8  0x002bb54f in llvm::PPCTargetLowering::LowerOperation  
>> (this=0x1803d58, Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}, DAG=@0x16088a0)  
>> at PPCISelLowering.cpp:3766
>> #9  0x0051bed6 in (anonymous  
>> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp (this=0xbffff0e8,  
>> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:1608
>> #10 0x0054837d in (anonymous  
>> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp (this=0xbffff0e8,  
>> Op={Node = 0x157a530, ResNo = 0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:519
>> #11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous  
>> namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG (this=0xbffff0e8) at  
>> LegalizeDAG.cpp:389
>> #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0,  
>> TypesNeedLegalizing=false, Fast=false) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:8648
>> #13 0x005ec313 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG  
>> (this=0x1608780) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:626
>> #14 0x005ee7e2 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock  
>> (this=0x1608780, LLVMBB=0x1603fa0,  
>> Begin={<bidirectional_iterator<llvm::Instruction,int>> =  
>> {<std::iterator<std::bid\
>> irectional_iterator_tag 
>>
,llvm::Instruction,int,llvm::Instruction*,llvm::Instruction&>> =
>> {<No data fields>}, <No data fields>}, NodePtr =
0x1604dd0},
>> End={<bidirectional_iterat\
>> or<llvm::Instruction,int>> =  
>> {< 
>> std 
>> ::iterator 
>> < 
>> std 
>> ::bidirectional_iterator_tag 
>>
,llvm::Instruction,int,llvm::Instruction*,llvm::Instruction&>> =
>> {<No data fields>}, <No data field\
>> s>}, NodePtr = 0x16049e0}) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:500
>> #15 0x005ef123 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectAllBasicBlocks  
>> (this=0x1608780, Fn=@0x1603720, MF=@0x160d520, MMI=0x160bbd0,  
>> DW=0x1608fe0, TII=@0x1803ce0) at SelectionDAGISel.\
>> cpp:856
>> #16 0x005efe54 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::runOnFunction  
>> (this=0x1608780, Fn=@0x1603720) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:327
>> #17 0x002a3aea in (anonymous  
>> namespace)::PPCDAGToDAGISel::runOnFunction (this=0x1608780,  
>> Fn=@0x1603720) at PPCISelDAGToDAG.cpp:54
>> #18 0x00874127 in llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction  
>> (this=0x1606610, F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1323
>> #19 0x0087464c in llvm::FunctionPassManagerImpl::run  
>> (this=0x1606410, F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1281
>> #20 0x008747da in llvm::FunctionPassManager::run (this=0xbffff520,  
>> F=@0x1603720) at PassManager.cpp:1226
>> #21 0x0000352e in main (argc=6, argv=0xbffff5d0) at llc.cpp:317
>>
>>
>>
>> Evan
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Scott Michel wrote:
>>
>>> Duncan:
>>>
>>> I'm still stymied how this whole thread ended up about shuffle
>>> vector nodes, when the original problem was my build vector patch.
>>> I'm still working on backing the build vector patch out (it
isn't
>>> clean with all of the intervening commits and I have pressing  
>>> management tasks which command my attention.)
>>>
>>>
>>> -scooter
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at
free.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>> > 3. Introduce a new ShuffleVectorSDNode that only has two
SDValue
>>> > operands (the two input vectors), but that also contains an  
>>> array of
>>> > ints in the node (not as operands).
>>> ...
>>> > The important part of #3 is that we really want an array of
ints
>>> > (using -1 for undef) for the shuffle mask, not
"operands".  This
>>> > eliminates the nastiness we have now were we need a
buildvector,
>>> and
>>> > it eliminates the dance we have to prevent the build vector
from
>>> being
>>> > legalized, and prevent the integer operands to it from being  
>>> legalized.
>>>
>>> This is PR2957 (which originally suggested a variadic SDNode, but
it
>>> quickly became clear that an array of ints is better).  It would be
>>> great to have a volunteer for this (I don't have time).
>>>
>>> Ciao,
>>>
>>> Duncan.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090302/5f876704/attachment.html>