Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "bb0_8".
Did you mean:
bb0_2
2013 Oct 03
1
[LLVMdev] Help with a Microblaze code generation problem.
...r3, r19, 60
bgtid r5, ($BB0_6)
swi r4, r19, 64
lwi r3, r19, 40
swi r3, r19, 64
$BB0_6:
lwi r3, r19, 64
lwi r4, r19, 52
lwi r5, r19, 60
swi r3, r19, 68
bneid r5, ($BB0_8)
swi r4, r19, 72
lwi r3, r19, 68
swi r3, r19, 72
$BB0_8:
lwi r3, r19, 72
add r1, r19, r0
lwi r19, r1, 4
rtsd r15, 8
addik r1, r1, 76
which is quite a bit different from the signed v...
2013 Feb 20
3
[LLVMdev] Is va_arg correct on Mips backend?
...rg_ptr2_offset has no initial value
sw $1, 16($sp)
b $BB0_1
addu $4, $5, $4
$BB0_5: # in Loop: Header=BB0_2 Depth=1
lw $4, 24($sp) // arg_ptr2
addiu $1, $4, 8 // arg_ptr2 + 8
sw $1, 24($sp)
b $BB0_1
nop
$BB0_6:
lw $1, 0($3)
lw $3, 56($sp)
bne $1, $3, $BB0_8
lw $2, 40($sp)
# BB#7: # %SP_return
lw $ra, 60($sp) # 4-byte Folded Reload
jr $ra
addiu $sp, $sp, 64
$BB0_8: # %CallStackCheckFailBlk
lw $25, %call16(__stack_chk_fail)($gp)
jalr $25
nop
.set at
.set macro
.set reor...
2013 Feb 20
0
[LLVMdev] Is va_arg correct on Mips backend?
...$sp)
> b $BB0_1
> addu $4, $5, $4
> $BB0_5: # in Loop: Header=BB0_2 Depth=1
> lw $4, 24($sp) // arg_ptr2
> addiu $1, $4, 8 // arg_ptr2 + 8
> sw $1, 24($sp)
> b $BB0_1
> nop
> $BB0_6:
> lw $1, 0($3)
> lw $3, 56($sp)
> bne $1, $3, $BB0_8
> lw $2, 40($sp)
> # BB#7: # %SP_return
> lw $ra, 60($sp) # 4-byte Folded Reload
> jr $ra
> addiu $sp, $sp, 64
> $BB0_8: # %CallStackCheckFailBlk
> lw $25, %call16(__stack_chk_fail)($gp)
> jalr $25
&g...
2013 Feb 19
0
[LLVMdev] Is va_arg correct on Mips backend?
Which part of the generated code do you think is not correct? Could you be
more specific?
I compiled this program with clang and ran it on a mips board. It returns
the expected result (21).
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Jonathan <gamma_chen at yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
> I check the Mips backend for the following C code fragment compile result.
> It seems not correct. Is it my
2013 Feb 19
2
[LLVMdev] Is va_arg correct on Mips backend?
I check the Mips backend for the following C code fragment compile result. It seems not correct. Is it my misunderstand or it's a bug.
//ch8_3.cpp
#include <stdarg.h>
int sum_i(int amount, ...)
{
int i = 0;
int val = 0;
int sum = 0;
va_list vl;
va_start(vl, amount);
for (i = 0; i < amount; i++)
{
val = va_arg(vl, int);
sum += val;
}
va_end(vl);