search for: createvirtualregisters

...omment on a patch like: diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/InstrEmitter.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/InstrEmitter.cpp index 65ee3816f84..4780f6f0e59 100644 --- a/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/InstrEmitter.cpp +++ b/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/InstrEmitter.cpp @@ -243,18 +243,21 @@ void InstrEmitter::CreateVirtualRegisters(SDNode *Node,      if (!VRBase && !IsClone && !IsCloned)        for (SDNode *User : Node->uses()) {          if (User->getOpcode() == ISD::CopyToReg &&              User->getOperand(2).getNode() == Node &&              User->getOperand(2).getResNo(...

In LiveIntervals::processImplicitDefs() we have this: for (MachineRegisterInfo::use_iterator UI = mri_->use_begin(Reg), UE = mri_->use_end(); UI != UE; ) { MachineOperand &RMO = UI.getOperand(); MachineInstr *RMI = &*UI; ++UI; MachineBasicBlock *RMBB = RMI->getParent(); if (RMBB == MBB) continue; const

Hello all, For my custom processor backend I am trying add some instruction using BuildMI() inside eliminateFrameIndex(). I tried RegScavenger like this: unsigned RegUnused0 = RS->FindUnusedReg(&LASER::GNPRegsRegClass); if (!RegUnused0) RegUnused0 = RS->scavengeRegister(&LASER::GNPRegsRegClass, II, SPAdj); assert(RegUnused0 && "Register scavenger failed");

On Jul 17, 2009, at 7:57 AM, David Greene wrote: > In LiveIntervals::processImplicitDefs() we have this: > > for (MachineRegisterInfo::use_iterator UI = mri_->use_begin(Reg), > UE = mri_->use_end(); UI != UE; ) { > MachineOperand &RMO = UI.getOperand(); > MachineInstr *RMI = &*UI; > ++UI; > MachineBasicBlock *RMBB

Looks good. + unsigned temp; + if (is64bit) + temp = RegInfo.createVirtualRegister(&PPC::GPRCRegClass); + else + temp = RegInfo.createVirtualRegister(&PPC::G8RCRegClass); How about? const TargetRegisterClass *RC = is64Bit ? &PPC:GPRCRegClass : &PPC:G8RCRegClass; unsigned TmpReg = RegInfo.createVirtualRegister(RC); Evan On Jul 9, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gary

Hi, I'm having trouble using virtual register in the X86 backend. I implemented a new intrinsic and I use a custom inserter. The goal of the intrinsic is to set the content of the stack to zero at the end of each function. Here is my code: MachineBasicBlock * X86TargetLowering::EmitBURNSTACKWithCustomInserter( MachineInstr *MI, MachineBasicBlock

I need to use ‘createVirtualRegister’ for a specific case in my ‘eliminateFrameIndex’ function implementation. However, whenever that code is executed, I get the assertion "MachineCopyPropagation should be run after register allocation!” at a later stage. I have seen that at least a couple of backend implementations (including ARM Thumb) create virtual registers in ‘eliminatedFrameIndex’.

Hi everyone, I am trying to expand one instruction into multiple instructions on MIPS. For example, I try to expand: sh src, imm(dst) into: (1) sb src, imm(dst) (2) srl reg0, src, 8 (3) sb reg0, (imm+1)(dst) Here, reg0 are created with createVirtualRegister. However, instr(2) will not be emitted because reg0 is useless before reg0 is defined in instr(3), it is wrong! So how to prevent the

Hi, I define a customized node with customized type. The job of this customized node is to move a value from one register class to another class. I find that if there is no use of the destination register, this node will be deleted from SDAG. For some reasons, I want to keep this node. So I attach mayStore attribute to this node and I hope it will not be deleted. However, it does not work like I

Look for createVirtualRegister. These are examples in PPCISelLowering.cpp. Evan On Jul 8, 2008, at 8:24 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Hi Evan, > > Evan Cheng wrote: >> The patch looks great. But I do have one comment: >> >> +let usesCustomDAGSchedInserter = 1 in { >> + let Uses = [CR0] in { >> + let Uses = [R0] in >> + def ATOMIC_LOAD_ADD_I32 :

...> one at > a time. <snip> > 4. The DAG scheduler pass (which creates machine instrs from dag > nodes) > currently thinks of register operands as simple unsigned's for > vreg > #'s. This needs to be extended to be vreg+subreg pairs (see > 'CreateVirtualRegisters'). > 5. We need to decide how to represent subregs in the DAG. Your > SDSubOperand idea is fine, but I don't think it needs to be an > actual > new subclass of SDOperand. Instead, it could just be a binary > SDNode, > where the LHS is the register input a...

s/llvm-commits/llvmdev/ On Dec 9, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > >> As Jakob pointed out to me, the core problem is that the current >> register scavenger implementation will only give you one register; for >> the PowerPC case, and it looks like for your case as well, we might >> really need two registers. In the short term, a reasonable solution

Hi Evan, Evan Cheng wrote: > The patch looks great. But I do have one comment: > > +let usesCustomDAGSchedInserter = 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,

...at it suddenly just changed behavior. > > It looks like to me that InstrEmitter.cpp:getVR is the one assigning the > virtual register no? > > > No, IIRC getVR only create the virtual register for implicit defs. Which > is not your case, right? > > > Though this code in CreateVirtualRegisters: > > const TargetRegisterClass *RC = > TRI->getAllocatableClass(TII->getRegClass(II, i, TRI, *MF)); > > That returns GPRBaseRegs for RC, but it then decides to constrain it based > on type: > > if (i < NumResults && TLI->isTypeLegal(Node->getSim...

Hi! I started writing a LLVM backend for a custom architecture. I have some register and instruction .td files and some other files/classes like a MCStreamer for assembler output. At the moment I can compile some empty programs so far. I implemented the method ::eliminateFrameIndex() similar to the Sparc and ARM backend. The method looks like this: // frame pointer is in reg of class

2008/2/15, Andreas Fredriksson <deplinenoise at gmail.com>: > > I tried mocking this up using the following. (Base is what's returned as > the Ax in the move expression above when the DAG is constructed due to > SelectAddr().) > > SDOperand chain = CurDAG->getCopyToReg(Base, M68K::A3, Base); > Base = CurDAG->getCopyFromReg(chain, M68K::A3, MVT::i32);

Hi, Thx for your help... Here is the IR code: ; ModuleID = 'foo_bar.c' target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" @.str = private unnamed_addr constant [6 x i8] c"MAIN\0A\00", align 1 ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define i32 @main(i32 %argc, i8** %argv) #0 { entry: %retval = alloca i32,

Hi, I have a task to complete and I'm getting stuck. I can't find anything comparable in the documentation. The shortest explanation I can give is as follows: I need to use double-precision floating point values for floating-point multiplies. I'll not go into why: That would take the discussion away from the essential problem. E.g. Replace: fmuls %f20,%f21,%f8 with the

...t;> >> It looks like to me that InstrEmitter.cpp:getVR is the one assigning the >> virtual register no? >> >> >> No, IIRC getVR only create the virtual register for implicit defs. Which >> is not your case, right? >> >> >> Though this code in CreateVirtualRegisters: >> >> const TargetRegisterClass *RC = >> TRI->getAllocatableClass(TII->getRegClass(II, i, TRI, *MF)); >> >> That returns GPRBaseRegs for RC, but it then decides to constrain it >> based on type: >> >> if (i < NumResults && TLI...

...amount of work to port from one version to the next though, I did not personally do the 3.4 to 3.6 porting. I agree though, it was very strange that it suddenly just changed behavior. It looks like to me that InstrEmitter.cpp:getVR is the one assigning the virtual register no? Though this code in CreateVirtualRegisters: const TargetRegisterClass *RC = TRI->getAllocatableClass(TII->getRegClass(II, i, TRI, *MF)); That returns GPRBaseRegs for RC, but it then decides to constrain it based on type: if (i < NumResults && TLI->isTypeLegal(Node->getSimpleValueType(i))) { const Targe...