search for: 48r

...rived 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:0) 80B%vreg18<def> = COPY %C1_X; R600_Reg32:%vreg18 register: %vreg18 +[80r,128r:0) 96B%vreg19:sel_x<def,read-undef> = COPY %vreg14<kill>; R600_Reg128:%vreg19 R600_TReg32:%vreg1...

...;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:0) > 80B%vreg18<def> = COPY %C1_X; R600_Reg32:%vreg18 > register: %vreg18 +[80r,128r:0) > 96B%vreg19:sel_x<def,read-undef> = COPY %vreg14<kill>; > R600_Re...

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 %v...

...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...

...ora.org> 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>;...

...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> =...

...ora.org> 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>;...

...t; 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...

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

...-def,dead> 192B NOP # End machine code for function addproddivConst. handleMove 64B -> 104B: %vreg4<def> = COPY %vreg3; FPUaOffsetClass:%vreg4 FPUaROUTMULRegisterClass:%vreg3 %vreg4: [64r,128r:0) 0 at 64r --> [104r,128r:0) 0 at 104r %vreg3: [48r,64r:0) 0 at 48r --> [48r,104r:0) 0 at 48r # *** IR Dump After Machine Instruction Scheduler ***: # Machine code for function addproddivConst: Post SSA Function Live Ins: %FA_ROFF1 in %vreg0 0B BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry Live Ins: %FA_ROFF1 16B %...

...y, 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 &g...

...ING INTERVALS *********** > entry: > 64B %RDI<def> = COPY %vreg0; GR64:%vreg0 > Considering merging %vreg0 with %RDI > Can only merge into reserved registers. > Remat: %RDI<def> = MOV64ri 12345123400 > Shrink: [32r,64r:0) 0 at 32r > Shrunk: [32r,48r:0) 0 at 32r > Trying to inflate 0 regs. > ********** INTERVALS ********** > %vreg0 = [32r,48r:0) 0 at 32r > RegMasks: 80r > > Jakob, what does "can only merge into reserved registers" mean in this instance. I don't see any reason for it not to do the merge. The c...

...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...

...** Function: caller ********** JOINING INTERVALS *********** entry: 64B %RDI<def> = COPY %vreg0; GR64:%vreg0 Considering merging %vreg0 with %RDI Can only merge into reserved registers. Remat: %RDI<def> = MOV64ri 12345123400 Shrink: [32r,64r:0) 0 at 32r Shrunk: [32r,48r:0) 0 at 32r Trying to inflate 0 regs. ********** INTERVALS ********** %vreg0 = [32r,48r:0) 0 at 32r RegMasks: 80r Jakob, what does "can only merge into reserved registers" mean in this instance. I don't see any reason for it not to do the merge. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM,...

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) {

On Aug 5, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Maurice Marks <maurice.marks at gmail.com> wrote: > Are you sure that's it? I commented that block out, rebuilt llvm 3.3, and it still duplicates the constant. > My concern is that long constant loads increase code size and if they can be avoided by better targeting it would be a win. My project's application of llvm tends to use a lot of long

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,

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))

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 >

...m/intel/tinycrypt/blob/master/lib/source/ecc_dh.c#L139 Thanks, Prathamesh -------------- next part -------------- PreferIndirect: 1 PreferIndirect: 1 PreferIndirect: 1 Computing live-in reg-units in ABI blocks. 0B %bb.0 R0#0 R1#0 R2#0 Created 3 new intervals. ********** INTERVALS ********** R0 [0B,48r:0)[96r,144r:3)[192r,240r:2)[288r,336r:1) 0 at 0B-phi 1 at 288r 2 at 192r 3 at 96r R1 [0B,32r:0)[112r,144r:3)[208r,240r:2)[304r,336r:1) 0 at 0B-phi 1 at 304r 2 at 208r 3 at 112r R2 [0B,16r:0)[128r,144r:3)[224r,240r:2)[320r,336r:1) 0 at 0B-phi 1 at 320r 2 at 224r 3 at 128r %0 [48r,288r:0) 0 at 48...