Displaying 18 results from an estimated 18 matches for "352r".
Did you mean:
352
2012 Aug 28
5
[LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update
Andy, Lang,
Thanks for the suggestion.
I have spent more time with it today, and I do see some strange things in
liveness update. I am not at the actual cause yet, but here is what I got so
far:
I have the following live ranges when I start scheduling a region:
R2 = [0B,48r:0)[352r,416r:5)...
R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...
R4 = [0B,32r:0)[384r,416r:4)...
R5 = [0B,32r:0)[400r,416r:4)...
I schedule the following instruction (48B):
0B BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
Live Ins: %R0 %R1 %D1 %D2
8B %vreg27<def> = COPY %R1<kill>; IntRegs:%vreg27
12B %vreg30<...
2012 Aug 30
0
[LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update
...gestion.
>
>
> I have spent more time with it today, and I do see some strange things in
> liveness update. I am not at the actual cause yet, but here is what I got
> so
> far:
>
> I have the following live ranges when I start scheduling a region:
>
> R2 = [0B,48r:0)[352r,416r:5)...
> R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...
> R4 = [0B,32r:0)[384r,416r:4)...
> R5 = [0B,32r:0)[400r,416r:4)...
>
> I schedule the following instruction (48B):
>
> 0B BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
> Live Ins: %R0 %R1 %D1 %D2
> 8B %vreg27...
2012 Aug 31
2
[LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update
...> wrote:
Andy, Lang,
Thanks for the suggestion.
I have spent more time with it today, and I do see some strange things in
liveness update. I am not at the actual cause yet, but here is what I got so
far:
I have the following live ranges when I start scheduling a region:
R2 = [0B,48r:0)[352r,416r:5)...
R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...
R4 = [0B,32r:0)[384r,416r:4)...
R5 = [0B,32r:0)[400r,416r:4)...
I schedule the following instruction (48B):
0B BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
Live Ins: %R0 %R1 %D1 %D2
8B %vreg27<def> = COPY %R1<kill>; IntRegs...
2012 Oct 25
2
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
...e output of --debug-only=regalloc shows that %vreg48 is a phi-join register, and intervals looks correct to me :
********** COMPUTING LIVE INTERVALS **********
********** Function: main
BB#0:# derived from
16B%vreg17<def> = COPY %T1_W<kill>; R600_TReg32:%vreg17
register: %vreg17 +[16r,352r:0)
32B%vreg16<def> = COPY %T1_Z<kill>; R600_TReg32:%vreg16
register: %vreg16 +[32r,240r:0)
48B%vreg15<def> = COPY %T1_Y<kill>; R600_TReg32:%vreg15
register: %vreg15 +[48r,160r:0)
64B%vreg14<def> = COPY %T1_X<kill>; R600_TReg32:%vreg14
register: %vreg14 +[64r,96r:...
2012 Aug 30
0
[LLVMdev] MC Register mapping question (MCRegUnitIterator )
...ion.
>
>
> I have spent more time with it today, and I do see some strange
> things in liveness update. I am not at the actual cause yet, but here
> is what I got so
> far:
>
> I have the following live ranges when I start scheduling a region:
>
> R2 = [0B,48r:0)[352r,416r:5)...
> R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...
> R4 = [0B,32r:0)[384r,416r:4)...
> R5 = [0B,32r:0)[400r,416r:4)...
>
> I schedule the following instruction (48B):
>
> 0B BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
> Live Ins: %R0 %R1 %D1 %D2
> 8B %vreg27<def> = COPY %R1...
2012 Oct 25
0
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
...gt; shows that %vreg48 is a phi-join register, and intervals looks correct to me :
>
> ********** COMPUTING LIVE INTERVALS **********
> ********** Function: main
> BB#0:# derived from
> 16B%vreg17<def> = COPY %T1_W<kill>; R600_TReg32:%vreg17
> register: %vreg17 +[16r,352r:0)
> 32B%vreg16<def> = COPY %T1_Z<kill>; R600_TReg32:%vreg16
> register: %vreg16 +[32r,240r:0)
> 48B%vreg15<def> = COPY %T1_Y<kill>; R600_TReg32:%vreg15
> register: %vreg15 +[48r,160r:0)
> 64B%vreg14<def> = COPY %T1_X<kill>; R600_TReg32:%vreg14
>...
2012 Aug 31
0
[LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update
...> wrote:
Andy, Lang,
Thanks for the suggestion.
I have spent more time with it today, and I do see some strange things in
liveness update. I am not at the actual cause yet, but here is what I got so
far:
I have the following live ranges when I start scheduling a region:
R2 = [0B,48r:0)[352r,416r:5)...
R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...
R4 = [0B,32r:0)[384r,416r:4)...
R5 = [0B,32r:0)[400r,416r:4)...
I schedule the following instruction (48B):
0B BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
Live Ins: %R0 %R1 %D1 %D2
8B %vreg27<def> = COPY %R1<kill>; IntRegs...
2012 Aug 30
2
[LLVMdev] MC Register mapping question (MCRegUnitIterator )
...have spent more time with it today, and I do see some strange
>> things in liveness update. I am not at the actual cause yet, but here
>> is what I got so
>> far:
>>
>> I have the following live ranges when I start scheduling a region:
>>
>> R2 = [0B,48r:0)[352r,416r:5)...
>> R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...
>> R4 = [0B,32r:0)[384r,416r:4)...
>> R5 = [0B,32r:0)[400r,416r:4)...
>>
>> I schedule the following instruction (48B):
>>
>> 0B BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
>> Live Ins: %R0 %R1 %D1 %D2...
2012 Aug 28
0
[LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update
On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> I've described that issue (see below) when you were out of town... I think
> I am getting more context on it. Please take a look...
>
> So, in short, when the new MI scheduler performs move of an instruction, it
> does something like this:
>
> // Move the instruction to its new
2012 Aug 06
4
[LLVMdev] Register Coalescer does not preserve TargetFlag
...loc pass (TF=2 corresponds to a Neg TargetFlag) :
352B %vreg20:sel_x<def,undef> = COPY %vreg16<kill>[TF=2], %vreg20<imp-def>; R600_Reg128:%vreg20 R600_Reg32:%vreg16
Considering merging %vreg16 with %vreg20:sel_x
Cross-class to R600_Reg128.
RHS = %vreg16 = [304r,352r:0) 0 at 304r
LHS = %vreg20 = [352r,400r:0) 0 at 352r
updated: 304B %vreg20:sel_x<def,undef> = MUL %vreg3:sel_x<kill>, %vreg15; R600_Reg128:%vreg20,%vreg3 R600_Reg32:%vreg15
Joined. Result = %vreg20 = [304r,400r:0) 0 at 304r
I'd like to prevent this specifi...
2012 Aug 30
0
[LLVMdev] MC Register mapping question (MCRegUnitIterator )
...I do see some strange
> >> things in liveness update. I am not at the actual cause yet, but
> here
> >> is what I got so
> >> far:
> >>
> >> I have the following live ranges when I start scheduling a region:
> >>
> >> R2 = [0B,48r:0)[352r,416r:5)...
> >> R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...
> >> R4 = [0B,32r:0)[384r,416r:4)...
> >> R5 = [0B,32r:0)[400r,416r:4)...
> >>
> >> I schedule the following instruction (48B):
> >>
> >> 0B BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
> >&...
2012 Sep 03
2
[LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update
...gestion.
>
>
> I have spent more time with it today, and I do see some strange things in
> liveness update. I am not at the actual cause yet, but here is what I got
> so
> far:
>
> I have the following live ranges when I start scheduling a region:
>
> R2 = [0B,48r:0)[352r,416r:5)...
> R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...
> R4 = [0B,32r:0)[384r,416r:4)...
> R5 = [0B,32r:0)[400r,416r:4)...
>
> I schedule the following instruction (48B):
>
> 0B BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
> Live Ins: %R0 %R1 %D1 %D2
> 8B %vreg27...
2012 Aug 28
2
[LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update
Andy,
I've described that issue (see below) when you were out of town... I think
I am getting more context on it. Please take a look...
So, in short, when the new MI scheduler performs move of an instruction, it
does something like this:
// Move the instruction to its new location in the instruction stream.
MachineInstr *MI = SU->getInstr();
if (IsTopNode) {
2012 Aug 30
0
[LLVMdev] MC Register mapping question (MCRegUnitIterator )
On Aug 30, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer <arnolds at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> The code in collectRanges() does:
>
> // Collect ranges for register units. These live ranges are computed on
> // demand, so just skip any that haven't been computed yet.
> if (TargetRegisterInfo::isPhysicalRegister(Reg)) {
> for (MCRegUnitIterator Units(Reg,
2012 Aug 30
2
[LLVMdev] MC Register mapping question (MCRegUnitIterator )
The code in collectRanges() does:
// Collect ranges for register units. These live ranges are computed on
// demand, so just skip any that haven't been computed yet.
if (TargetRegisterInfo::isPhysicalRegister(Reg)) {
for (MCRegUnitIterator Units(Reg, &TRI); Units.isValid(); ++Units)
if (LiveInterval *LI = LIS.getCachedRegUnit(*Units))
2012 Oct 25
0
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
Hi Vincent,
On 24/10/2012 23:26, Vincent Lejeune wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if my llvm ir code is faulty, or if I spot a bug in the RegisterCoalescing Pass, so I'm posting my issue on the ML. Shader and print-before-all dump are given below.
>
> The interessing part is the vreg6/vreg48 reduction : before RegCoalescing, the machine code is :
>
> // BEFORE LOOP
>
2012 Oct 24
3
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing Pass seems to ignore part of CFG.
Hi,
I don't know if my llvm ir code is faulty, or if I spot a bug in the RegisterCoalescing Pass, so I'm posting my issue on the ML. Shader and print-before-all dump are given below.
The interessing part is the vreg6/vreg48 reduction : before RegCoalescing, the machine code is :
// BEFORE LOOP
... Some COPYs....
400B%vreg47<def> = COPY %vreg2<kill>; R600_Reg32:%vreg47,%vreg2
2012 Oct 20
2
[LLVMdev] RegisterCoalescing pass crashes with ImplicitDef registers
...%vreg3
288B%vreg16<def> = COPY %vreg14:sel_x; R600_Reg32:%vreg16 R600_Reg128:%vreg14
register: %vreg16 +[288r,336r:0)
304B%T2_Y<def> = COPY %vreg2; R600_TReg32:%vreg2
320B%vreg17<def> = COPY %vreg14:sel_y<kill>; R600_Reg32:%vreg17 R600_Reg128:%vreg14
register: %vreg17 +[320r,352r:0)
336B%T2_Z<def> = COPY %vreg16<kill>; R600_Reg32:%vreg16
352B%T2_W<def> = COPY %vreg17<kill>; R600_Reg32:%vreg17
368B%T1_X<def> = COPY %vreg3<kill>; R600_TReg32:%vreg3
384B%T1_Y<def> = COPY %vreg2<kill>; R600_TReg32:%vreg2
400B%T1_Z<def> = COP...