search for: collectranges

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)...

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, &TRI); Units.isVal...

Arnold, It is not my code per say - this is what is done in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp collectRanges(), it wants to iterate over "units" of D1 (whatever they are assumed to be), but right there it associates them with actual physical register live ranges (see the tread below), and it does it wrongly. I was trying to pinpoint exactly to where the issue is, but there are too many interdep...

...5)... >> R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... >> R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... >> R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... >> >> Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B >> (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). >> collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and >> correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 >> >> [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... >> [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... >> >> ___BUT____ after the update, my new ranges look like this: >> >>...

...te new live ranges look like this: R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... ___BUT____ after the update, my new ranges look like this: R2 = [0B,32r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...<&...

...= [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... > R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... > R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... > > Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B (also > new > after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). > collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and > correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 > > [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... > > ___BUT____ after the update, my new ranges look like this: > > R2 = [0B,32r:0)[352r,416r:5)......

...te new live ranges look like this: R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... ___BUT____ after the update, my new ranges look like this: R2 = [0B,32r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...<&...

...R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... > R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... > R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... > > Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B > (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). > collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and > correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 > > [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... > > ___BUT____ after the update, my new ranges look like this: > > R2 = [0B,32r:0)[352r,416r:5)...

...te new live ranges look like this: R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... ___BUT____ after the update, my new ranges look like this: R2 = [0B,32r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)...<&...

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

...= [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... > R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... > R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... > > Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B (also > new > after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). > collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and > correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 > > [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... > > ___BUT____ after the update, my new ranges look like this: > > R2 = [0B,32r:0)[352r,416r:5)......

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) {