search for: 352r

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&lt...
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 &gt...
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...