search for: coallescers

--- Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > > following: > > 1) some of the fixed registers intervals are merged with some > virtual > > registers intervals > > 2) later there is a need to spill one of the allocated registers, > but > > since all joined intervals are FIXED intervals now due to (1),

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, David Greene wrote: > As I work toward improving LLVM register allocation, I've > come across the need to do some refactoring. cool. :) One request: Evan is currently out on vacation until Monday. This is an area that he is very interested in and will want to chime in on. Please don't start anything drastic until he gets back :). > Specifically, I would

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Greene wrote: >> Yep, this is the one I was thinking of. It is available online here: >> http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/LACSI/pldi02.pdf > > I was just looking at this today. One thing that strikes me about > all these papers I've read on the topic is that no one seems to > consider the interaction of coalescing with spilling. By definition

Chris Lattner wrote: >> Doesn't that last statement actually do the rewrite? > > Hrm, yes, yes it appears so. Question is: doesn't this make the r2r map > dead? Does something else fill it in? My memory is hazy here :). If it > is dead, we should rip it out (actually, we should make it private to the > coallescer function). I'm trying an experiment to

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, David Greene wrote: >> As I work toward improving LLVM register allocation, I've >> come across the need to do some refactoring. > > cool. :) One request: Evan is currently out on vacation until Monday. > This is an area that he is very interested in and will want to chime in > on. Please don't start anything

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, David Greene wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >>> Doesn't that last statement actually do the rewrite? >> Hrm, yes, yes it appears so. Question is: doesn't this make the r2r map >> dead? Does something else fill it in? My memory is hazy here :). If it >> is dead, we should rip it out (actually, we should make it private to the >>

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, David Greene wrote: >> Beyond that, one of the issues is the "r2rmap" and "rep" function. As >> you've noticed, the coallescer basically uses these to avoid rewriting the >> code after it does coallescing. For example, if r1024 is coallesced with >> r1026, it leaves all uses of both registers in the code, instead of >>

Hi all, As I work toward improving LLVM register allocation, I've come across the need to do some refactoring. Specifically, I would like to separate register coalescing from live interval analysis. Right now LiveIntervals handles both. The reason I want to separate them is that other types of register allocators might like to do coalescing differently (e.g. graph coloring does it by

Chris Lattner wrote: > No there isn't, unfortunately. I'd suggest building up/maintaining the > r2r map inside the coallescer. Once the coallescer is done with the > entire function, do a single pass over the function rewriting all the > coallesced vregs. Ok. I have a version with the coalescer separated from liveIntervalAnalysis. It still uses the r2r map but as we

Here''s a peculiar one. I''m trying to simulate some speed effects due to varying sized packets so I have written a quick perl app which spits out packets of a fixed size (<1500 bytes). What I''m finding is the despite apparently turning off nagle and everything else I can think of I still notice that when the receiver isn''t keeping up that the sending

On Apr 12, 2007, at 2:37 PM, David Greene wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, David Greene wrote: >>> As I work toward improving LLVM register allocation, I've >>> come across the need to do some refactoring. Yay! >> Beyond that, one of the issues is the "r2rmap" and "rep" >> function. As >> you've

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > where %reg1032 is dead. Right. One of the jobs of the register allocator is to coallesce register copies. Once coallesced, they can be removed. > I'm removing these instructions. In Linear scan, they are removed too. > I'm removing all the dead definitions from instructions that are not > function calls, and

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: >>> I'm definitely interested in improving coalescing and it sounds like >>> this would fall under that work. Do you have references to papers >>> that talk about the various algorithms? >> Some suggestions: >> >> @InProceedings{Budimlic02, >> AUTHOR =

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: >> I'm definitely interested in improving coalescing and it sounds like >> this would fall under that work. Do you have references to papers >> that talk about the various algorithms? > > Some suggestions: > > @InProceedings{Budimlic02, > AUTHOR = {Zoran Budimlic and Keith D. Cooper and Timothy

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > following: > 1) some of the fixed registers intervals are merged with some virtual > registers intervals > 2) later there is a need to spill one of the allocated registers, but > since all joined intervals are FIXED intervals now due to (1), they > cannot be spilled. Therefore, the register allocator loops for ever. > > I would

> > It seems to me that the only instructions > > with dead definitions that I should not remove are the calls. Is it true? > > I would like to know if a code like this below is safe, that is, besides > > call instructions, is there other instructions that must stay in the code > > even if their definitions are dead? > > > > MachineInstr * mi = iter; >

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > First, I attach two files -- LLVM asm and the asm for my target. The > > problem with assembler is: on line 171 it uses register gr2, which is > > copied from gr6 above, on line 161. The only predecessor of this basic > > block is jump on line 90. The problem is that gr6 is not initialized in > >

> > Why it is named RETFLAG? > > Historical reason. Originally we didn't have nodes that could > *optionally* have an input flag. A better design, e.g. on PPC would be to > have a PPCISD::RET node, which takes an optional input flag, and always > lower RET to it. I See. I will try to always lower to "(mov)*;bx lr" on ARM. > Flag in the SelectionDAG stuff is

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > But please allow me to explain the hardware in detail. Hope there is > more elegant way to solve it. Sounds good! > The hardware is a "stream processor". That is, It processes samples > one by one. Each sample is associated with several 128-bit > four-element vector registers, namely: > > * input registers - the

On 08/09/05, Alkis Evlogimenos <evlogimenos at gmail.com> wrote: > representative register (found using a union find algorithm). Note that > the representative register could be a real register if we ever joined > an interval of a real register with one of a virtual register (and this > real register will be the representative register of the set of > intervals joined