search for: 2700,3712

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "2700,3712".

2009 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
...Ah, I see. But coalescing seems to break. I don't know if it's because of the eliminated IMPLICIT_DEF, though. Here's what happens. Let's look at this code, annotated with live range indices: bb134: 2696 %reg1645<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1458<kill> ; srcLine 0 bb74: 2700 %reg1176<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1645<kill> ; srcLine 0 2704 %reg1177<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1646<kill> ; srcLine 0 *** u before d 2708 %reg1178<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1647<kill> ; srcLine 0 *** u before d 2712 TEST64rr %reg1173, %reg1173, %EFLAGS<imp-def>...
2009 Jan 30
0
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
On Friday 30 January 2009 15:10, David Greene wrote: > This still looks correct. The coalescer then says: > > 4360 %reg1177<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1176<kill> ; srcLine 0 > Inspecting %reg1176,0 = [2702,4362:0) 0 at 2702-(4362) and %reg1177,0 = > [2700,3712:0)[3768,3878:0)[4362,4372:0) 0 at 4362-(3878): > Joined. Result = %reg1177,0 = [2700,4372:0) 0 at 2702-(4362) > > Eh? How can it coalesce these two? Doesn't %reg1176:[2702,4362:0) overlap > %reg1177:[2700,3712:0)? > > I will look into this further. Just wanted to...
2009 Jan 30
0
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
On Jan 29, 2009, at 5:29 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 29 January 2009 18:04, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: >>> After phi elimination we have: >>> >>> bb134: >>> %reg1645 = 1.0 >>> >>> bb74: >>> %reg1176 = MOVAPS %reg1645 >>> %reg1177 =
2009 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
On Thursday 29 January 2009 18:04, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > > After phi elimination we have: > > > > bb134: > > %reg1645 = 1.0 > > > > bb74: > > %reg1176 = MOVAPS %reg1645 > > %reg1177 = MOVAPS %reg1646 > > [...] > > > > bb108: > > %reg1645 =
2009 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
...anuary 2009 15:10, David Greene wrote: > >> This still looks correct. The coalescer then says: >> >> 4360 %reg1177<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1176<kill> ; srcLine 0 >> Inspecting %reg1176,0 = [2702,4362:0) 0 at 2702-(4362) and >> %reg1177,0 = >> [2700,3712:0)[3768,3878:0)[4362,4372:0) 0 at 4362-(3878): >> Joined. Result = %reg1177,0 = [2700,4372:0) 0 at 2702-(4362) >> >> Eh? How can it coalesce these two? Doesn't %reg1176:[2702,4362:0) >> overlap >> %reg1177:[2700,3712:0)? >> >> I will look...
2009 Feb 02
0
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
...ine any value. So we don't > care if a live interval overlaps live ranges defined by an implicit_def. It's a bug because the coalerscer does illegal coaescing. Our last episode left us here: bb134: 2696 %reg1645<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1458<kill> ; srcLine 0 bb74: 2700 %reg1176<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1645<kill> ; srcLine 0 [deleted copy] 2708 %reg1178<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1647<kill> ; srcLine 0 *** u before d 2712 TEST64rr %reg1173, %reg1173, %EFLAGS<imp-def> ; srcLine 30 2716 JLE mbb<file test.f90, b...
2009 Feb 02
2
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
...al overlaps live ranges defined by an >> implicit_def. > > It's a bug because the coalerscer does illegal coaescing. > > Our last episode left us here: > > bb134: > 2696 %reg1645<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1458<kill> ; srcLine 0 > > bb74: > 2700 %reg1176<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1645<kill> ; srcLine 0 > [deleted copy] > 2708 %reg1178<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1647<kill> ; srcLine > 0 *** u > before d > 2712 TEST64rr %reg1173, %reg1173, %EFLAGS<imp-def> ; srcLine 30 > 271...