Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "addrangefrom".
2012 Aug 17
0
[LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update
...tructure, but one of my tests triggers an assert in LiveInterval
update. On the surface it does not make much sense to me, so I wonder if
this is something you readily recognize, before I try to prop it open...
The assert is:
lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:266: llvm::LiveRange*
llvm::LiveInterval::addRangeFrom(llvm::LiveRange, llvm::LiveRange*):
Assertion `B->end <= Start && "Cannot overlap two LiveRanges with differing
ValID's" " (did you def the same reg twice in a MachineInstr?)"' failed.
has this following call stack:
#3 in llvm::LiveInterval::addRangeFrom...
2012 Aug 15
3
[LLVMdev] MI bundle liveness attributes
On Aug 13, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Yes, this is what Arnold has suggested also, and from this point it looks
> like it should work, but it will require parsing the bundle every time we
> care to know whether this is a real use or a conditional def. This might
> become awkward... but I guess I should provide a better
2012 Aug 28
2
[LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update
...an assert in LiveInterval
> update. On the surface it does not make much sense to me, so I wonder
> if this is something you readily recognize, before I try to prop it
> open...
>
> The assert is:
>
> lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:266: llvm::LiveRange*
> llvm::LiveInterval::addRangeFrom(llvm::LiveRange, llvm::LiveRange*):
> Assertion `B->end <= Start && "Cannot overlap two LiveRanges with
> differing ValID's" " (did you def the same reg twice in a
> MachineInstr?)"' failed.
>
> has this following call stack:
>
> #3...
2008 Feb 21
0
[LLVMdev] Bug? Coalescing & Updating Subreg Intervals
...g1026)
3. Start = 458, End = 5168
4. IP = [938,942:1 [0]) (std::upper_bound(IP, end(), Start)
5. IP != begin() && IP[-1].end > Start is FALSE
6. IP != end() && End > IP->start is TRUE
7. End = 938 (IP->start)
8. Start == End is FALSE
9. IP = [458,938:89 [0])
(addRangeFrom(LiveRange(Start, End, ClobberValNo), IP))
10. We are now done processing [458,5168:0 [0]) from %reg1026
but we didn't process the part of the interval AFTER 938, where
the overlap with %reg15 ends!
This comment seems strange to me:
// If the end of this range overlaps with an existin...
2008 Feb 21
2
[LLVMdev] Bug? Coalescing & Updating Subreg Intervals
On Feb 20, 2008, at 7:36 PM, David A. Greene wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 07:00:28 pm Evan Cheng wrote:
>
>>> In other words, after coalescing, should it be the case that
>>> subregister
>>> intervals contain at least all of the range information that was
>>> contained
>>> in any eliminated intervals when those eliminated intervals were