Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "crt8".
Did you mean:
crt
2011 Dec 05
3
[LLVMdev] Dead register (was Re: [llvm-commits] [llvm] r145819)
...gt; = LDX %X4<kill>, %X5<kill>; mem:LD8[JumpTable]
MTCTR8 %X4<kill>, %CTR8<imp-def,dead>
BCTR8 %CTR8<imp-use,kill>, %RM<imp-use>
Successors according to CFG: BB#23 BB#15 BB#7 BB#8 BB#9 BB#10 BB#11
BB#25 BB#12 BB#16 BB#18 BB#13 BB#17
How could CRT8 be marked implicitly-defined and also dead in the same
instruction when it is clearly used in the next instruction? The code
that inserts these instructions is in SDNode
*PPCDAGToDAGISel::Select(SDNode *N) and reads:
case ISD::BRIND: {
// FIXME: Should custom lower this.
SDValue Chain =...
2011 Dec 05
0
[LLVMdev] Dead register (was Re: [llvm-commits] [llvm] r145819)
...%X5<kill>; mem:LD8[JumpTable]
> MTCTR8 %X4<kill>, %CTR8<imp-def,dead>
> BCTR8 %CTR8<imp-use,kill>, %RM<imp-use>
> Successors according to CFG: BB#23 BB#15 BB#7 BB#8 BB#9 BB#10 BB#11
> BB#25 BB#12 BB#16 BB#18 BB#13 BB#17
>
> How could CRT8 be marked implicitly-defined and also dead in the same
> instruction when it is clearly used in the next instruction?
This is the kind of sloppy liveness, I was talking about ;-)
llc -verify-machineinstrs should give you better info.
/jakob
2011 Dec 06
2
[LLVMdev] Dead register (was Re: [llvm-commits] [llvm] r145819)
...able]
> > MTCTR8 %X4<kill>, %CTR8<imp-def,dead>
> > BCTR8 %CTR8<imp-use,kill>, %RM<imp-use>
> > Successors according to CFG: BB#23 BB#15 BB#7 BB#8 BB#9 BB#10 BB#11
> > BB#25 BB#12 BB#16 BB#18 BB#13 BB#17
> >
> > How could CRT8 be marked implicitly-defined and also dead in the same
> > instruction when it is clearly used in the next instruction?
>
> This is the kind of sloppy liveness, I was talking about ;-)
>
> llc -verify-machineinstrs should give you better info.
Unfortunately, this just tells me...