search for: emitliveincopi

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 I'll just try to merge that pass with into the SelectionDAG. Thanks, Tom > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Stellard, Thomas <Tom.Stellard at amd.com>wrote: > > > This patch seem...

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: > >...

...d at amd.com] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:55 PM To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [PATCH] MachineRegisterInfo: Don't emit the same livein copy more than once On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:56:03PM -0500, Tom Stellard wrote: > --- > > Is MachineRegisterInfo::EmitLiveInCopies() only meant to be called once > per compile? If I call it more than once, it emits duplicate copies > which causes the live interval analysis to fail. > > lib/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.cpp | 4 +++- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/l...

..., 2012 1:55 PM > To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [PATCH] MachineRegisterInfo: Don't emit the > same livein copy more than once > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:56:03PM -0500, Tom Stellard wrote: > > --- > > > > Is MachineRegisterInfo::EmitLiveInCopies() only meant to be called once > > per compile? If I call it more than once, it emits duplicate copies > > which causes the live interval analysis to fail. > > > > lib/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.cpp | 4 +++- > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)...

...ellard, Thomas" <Tom.Stellard at amd.com>, "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: <CALLttgr8Bxj_Ttbs=ez_qRCuS_xNwWjcrsu4SEbcsT4OyQf7nQ at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: > >...

Need some guidance about the right way to model this -- how would you model a backend with a handful of read-only physical registers that are passed as arguments to a function? I was emitting copyFromReg nodes in the LowerFormalArgument() routine, but then the register allocator and coalescer are resisting coalescing the COPY MI's for various reasons - for example, the read-only register class