search for: addreg

...] in { > + let Uses = [R0] in > + def ATOMIC_LOAD_ADD_I32 : Pseudo< > > The "let Uses = [R0]" is not needed. The pseudo instruction will be > expanded like this later: > > + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::LDARX : PPC::LWARX), dest) > + .addReg(ptrA).addReg(ptrB); > + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::ADD4 : PPC::ADD8), PPC::R0) > + .addReg(incr).addReg(dest); > + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::STDCX : PPC::STWCX)) > + .addReg(PPC::R0).addReg(ptrA).addReg(ptrB); > > The second instruction de...

...can only have some regs as destination. I am not defining just one machine but let's say a "kind" of similar machines, so I have separate cases, the number of regs that can be destination of, for example, "add", can vary from just one to several. They form the "AddRegs" class. Also, they are not spillable to stack, but they can be copied to general purpose IntRegs. Say I have two additions on my code, and just one reg in AddRegs. The RA would run out of registers, so I change the ISel in a way the adds are selected to my machineinstr going to AddRegs...

...s = [R0] in >> + def ATOMIC_LOAD_ADD_I32 : Pseudo< >> >> The "let Uses = [R0]" is not needed. The pseudo instruction will be >> expanded like this later: >> >> + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::LDARX : PPC::LWARX), dest) >> + .addReg(ptrA).addReg(ptrB); >> + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::ADD4 : PPC::ADD8), PPC::R0) >> + .addReg(incr).addReg(dest); >> + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::STDCX : PPC::STWCX)) >> + .addReg(PPC::R0).addReg(ptrA).addReg(ptrB); >> >> Th...

...= 0x2, Kill = 0x4, Dead = 0x8, EarlyClobber = 0x10, ImplicitDefine = Implicit | Define, ImplicitKill = Implicit | Kill }; } class MachineInstrBuilder { MachineInstr *MI; public: explicit MachineInstrBuilder(MachineInstr *mi) : MI(mi) {} /// addReg - Add a new virtual register operand... /// const MachineInstrBuilder &addReg(unsigned RegNo, unsigned flags = 0, unsigned SubReg = 0) const { MI->addOperand(MachineOperand::CreateReg(RegNo, flags & RegS...

...chedInserter = 1 in { + let Uses = [CR0] in { + let Uses = [R0] in + def ATOMIC_LOAD_ADD_I32 : Pseudo< The "let Uses = [R0]" is not needed. The pseudo instruction will be expanded like this later: + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::LDARX : PPC::LWARX), dest) + .addReg(ptrA).addReg(ptrB); + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::ADD4 : PPC::ADD8), PPC::R0) + .addReg(incr).addReg(dest); + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::STDCX : PPC::STWCX)) + .addReg(PPC::R0).addReg(ptrA).addReg(ptrB); The second instruction defines R0 and the 3rd reads R0...

On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Carlos Sánchez de La Lama wrote: > Hi people, > > the LinearScan register allocator tries to use same register for both > live intervals, if the new interval is defined by a register copy > whose destination reg is compatible with the source register. This is > ok. However, this "check for compatibility" is wrongly done IMHO. >

...--> copy0MBB - MachineBasicBlock *thisMBB = BB; - MachineBasicBlock *copy0MBB = new MachineBasicBlock(LLVM_BB); - MachineBasicBlock *sinkMBB = new MachineBasicBlock(LLVM_BB); - unsigned SelectPred = MI->getOperand(4).getImm(); - BuildMI(BB, TII->get(PPC::BCC)) - .addImm(SelectPred).addReg(MI->getOperand(1).getReg()).addMBB(sinkMBB); - MachineFunction *F = BB->getParent(); - F->getBasicBlockList().insert(It, copy0MBB); - F->getBasicBlockList().insert(It, sinkMBB); - // Update machine-CFG edges by transferring all successors of the current - // block to the new block...

...t; enum { > Define = 0x1, > Implicit = 0x2, > Kill = 0x4, > Dead = 0x8, > EarlyClobber = 0x10, > ImplicitDefine = Implicit | Define, > ImplicitKill = Implicit | Kill > }; > } [...] > MachineInstrBuilder &addReg(unsigned RegNo, unsigned flags = 0, > unsigned SubReg = 0) const { Hi Bill, I definitely like this change. The staccato bool arguments are impossible to read. One comment: If I forget to update an addReg(Reg, true) call, it will still compile and work by accid...

...T == MVT::i32 && "Invalid Pointer Size!"); + + unsigned Buf = MI->getOperand(0).getReg(); + unsigned JmpLoc = MRI.createVirtualRegister(&SP::IntRegsRegClass); + + // Instruction to load jmp location + MIB = BuildMI(*MBB, MI, DL, TII->get(SP::LDri)) + .addReg(JmpLoc, RegState::Define) + .addReg(Buf) + .addImm(PtrSize); + MIB.setMemRefs(MMOBegin, MMOEnd); + + // TO DO: If we do 64-bit handling, this perhaps should be FLUSHW, not TA 3 + const long int TRAP_COND_ALWAYS = 0x08; + MIB = BuildMI(*MBB, MI, DL, TII->get(SP::TR...

...AddrRegClass = getRegClassFor(MVT::i64); unsigned regA = MRI.createVirtualRegister(AddrRegClass); unsigned regB = MRI.createVirtualRegister(AddrRegClass); unsigned regC = MRI.createVirtualRegister(AddrRegClass); // Set the indice BuildMI(*MBB, MI, db, TII->get(X86::MOV64rr)).addReg(regA).addReg(X86::RSP); // Check condition BuildMI(*MBB_cond, MBB_cond->end(), db, TII->get(X86::PHI), regB).addReg(regA).addMBB(MBB).addReg(regC).addMBB(MBB_erase); BuildMI(*MBB_cond, MBB_cond->end(), db, TII->get(X86::CMP64rr)).addReg(regB).addReg(X86::RBP); BuildMI(*...

Hi people, the LinearScan register allocator tries to use same register for both live intervals, if the new interval is defined by a register copy whose destination reg is compatible with the source register. This is ok. However, this "check for compatibility" is wrongly done IMHO. Say I have regclass1 with reg A, and regclass2 with regs {A, B}, but regclass2 defines only

...ATOMIC_LOAD_ADD_I32 : Pseudo< > >> > >> The "let Uses = [R0]" is not needed. The pseudo instruction will be > >> expanded like this later: > >> > >> + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::LDARX : PPC::LWARX), dest) > >> + .addReg(ptrA).addReg(ptrB); > >> + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::ADD4 : PPC::ADD8), PPC::R0) > >> + .addReg(incr).addReg(dest); > >> + BuildMI(BB, TII->get(is64bit ? PPC::STDCX : PPC::STWCX)) > >> + .addReg(PPC::R0).addReg(ptrA).addReg(ptrB);...

...ke: That fits. This line LDri_ab %FP, %SP, 4 should almost certainly be printed as: %FP = LDri_ab %SP, 4 The most likely cause is a slightly malformed BuildMI that's adding %FP without a define flag. Usually you put the destination register inside the call to BuildMI, and inputs with "addReg(...)" and so on. All this actually does is fiddle the flags in an appropriate manner; you can emulate it with addReg, but why bother? So what you should be looking for is something like: BuildMI(LDri_ab).addReg(Dest).addReg(Src).addImm(Offset) and changing it to: BuildMI(LDri_ab, Dest).addR...

...--> copy0MBB - MachineBasicBlock *thisMBB = BB; - MachineBasicBlock *copy0MBB = new MachineBasicBlock(LLVM_BB); - MachineBasicBlock *sinkMBB = new MachineBasicBlock(LLVM_BB); - unsigned SelectPred = MI->getOperand(4).getImm(); - BuildMI(BB, TII->get(PPC::BCC)) - .addImm(SelectPred).addReg(MI->getOperand(1).getReg()).addMBB(sinkMBB); - MachineFunction *F = BB->getParent(); - F->getBasicBlockList().insert(It, copy0MBB); - F->getBasicBlockList().insert(It, sinkMBB); - // Update machine-CFG edges by transferring all successors of the current - // block to the new block...

Hi, I'm trying to implement __builtin_setjmp / __builtin_longjmp for Sparc processors. I think I'm very close, but I can't work out how to issue BuildMI-type instructions to load the address of the recovery location (set in setjmp) into a register using the SETHI / OR combination. I can't see any equivalent code anywhere else in Sparc. I imagine this is similar if I try to make a

On Oct 23, 2012, at 2:10 AM, Stephen McGruer <stephen.mcgruer at gmail.com> wrote: > I have a target backend which is currently causing live interval analysis to throw 'Interval not live at use' errors for many of my benchmarks. I imagine that this is caused by missing information for my target (probably in the instructioninfo tablegen?), but I am having difficulties in both

...; MBB_cond->addSuccessor(MBB_erase); MachineRegisterInfo &MRI = MBB->getParent()->getRegInfo(); const TargetRegisterClass *AddrRegClass = getRegClassFor(MVT::i64); unsigned reg = MRI.createVirtualRegister(AddrRegClass); // Set the indice BuildMI(*MBB, MI, db, TII->get(X86::MOV64rr)).addReg(reg).addReg(X86::RSP); // Create the for loop condition BuildMI(*MBB_cond, MBB_cond->end(), db, TII->get(X86::CMP64rr)).addReg(reg).addReg(X86::RBP); BuildMI(*MBB_cond, MBB_cond->end(), db, TII->get(X86::JE_4)).addMBB(MBB_end); // Update phi node BuildMI(*MBB_erase, MBB_erase->end(),...

PPCTargetLowering::EmitInstrWithCustomInserter has a reference to the current MachineFunction for other purposes. Can you use MachineFunction::getRegInfo instead? Dan On Jul 8, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Gary Benson wrote: > Would it be acceptable to change MachineInstr::getRegInfo from private > to public so I can use it from > PPCTargetLowering::EmitInstrWithCustomInserter? > >

...neFunction *F = BB->getParent(); - MachineBasicBlock *copy0MBB = F->CreateMachineBasicBlock(LLVM_BB); - MachineBasicBlock *sinkMBB = F->CreateMachineBasicBlock(LLVM_BB); - unsigned SelectPred = MI->getOperand(4).getImm(); - BuildMI(BB, TII->get(PPC::BCC)) - .addImm(SelectPred).addReg(MI->getOperand(1).getReg()).addMBB(sinkMBB); - F->insert(It, copy0MBB); - F->insert(It, sinkMBB); - // Update machine-CFG edges by transferring all successors of the current - // block to the new block which will contain the Phi node for the select. - sinkMBB->transferSuccessors(BB...

Hi Gary, This does not patch cleanly for me (PPCISelLowering.cpp). Can you prepare a updated patch? Thanks, Evan On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Cool, that worked. New patch attached... > > Cheers, > Gary > > Evan Cheng wrote: >> Just cast both values to const TargetRegisterClass*. >> >> Evan >> >> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:36