search for: def_empti

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "def_empti".

Did you mean: def_empty
2012 Feb 14
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] MachineRegisterInfo: Don't emit the same livein copy more than once
This patch seems to have been lost on the llvm-commits mailing list. Would someone be able to review it? Thanks, Tom ________________________________________ From: llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] on behalf of Tom Stellard [thomas.stellard at amd.com] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:55 PM To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [llvm-commits]
2012 Feb 14
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] MachineRegisterInfo: Don't emit the same livein copy more than once
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:17:11PM -0800, Lang Hames wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I'm pretty sure this function should only ever be called once, by > SelectionDAG. Do you know where the second call is coming from in your code? > > Cheers, > Lang. Hi Lang, I was calling EmitLiveInCopies() from one of my backend specific passes. If the function can only be called once, then
2012 Feb 14
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] MachineRegisterInfo: Don't emit the same livein copy more than once
Hi Tom, I'm pretty sure this function should only ever be called once, by SelectionDAG. Do you know where the second call is coming from in your code? Cheers, Lang. On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Stellard, Thomas <Tom.Stellard at amd.com>wrote: > This patch seems to have been lost on the llvm-commits mailing list. > Would someone be able to review it? > > Thanks, >
2012 Feb 15
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] MachineRegisterInfo: Don't emit the same livein copy more than once
Hi Tom, As far as I can tell EmitLiveInCopies is just there to handle physreg arguments and return values. Is there any reason for these to change late in your backend? - Lang. On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com>wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:17:11PM -0800, Lang Hames wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > I'm pretty sure this
2012 Feb 21
0
[LLVMdev] Strange behaviour with x86-64 windows, bad call instruction address
Hi all, me again! Well, after much hacking of code and thinking and frustration, I finally figured out what I was doing wrong. It turns out my initial attempts at using various gflags settings were causing VirtualAlloc to return GIANT addresses. In particular, the Application Verifier flag ( -vrf ), seems to cause VirtualAlloc to do what looks like top-down allocations and then llvm happily