Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "findliveinmbbs".
2008 Apr 16
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in LiveIntervalAnalysis?
Hi
I'm seeing something probably related to this. I'm getting an assert
from the lower_bound in LiveIntervals::findLiveinMBBs (from a checking
std:: VS2005 implementation). Idx2MBBMap has two elements in it, both
of which have a .first of 0. (I believe because of an empty MBB in the
function below, so StartIndex doesn't advance).
scott
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at yahoo.com> w...
2008 Apr 18
1
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in LiveIntervalAnalysis?
...bug so I don't forget? I'm a little occupied right now.
But I'll take care of this soon.
Evan
On Apr 16, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Scott Graham wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm seeing something probably related to this. I'm getting an assert
> from the lower_bound in LiveIntervals::findLiveinMBBs (from a checking
> std:: VS2005 implementation). Idx2MBBMap has two elements in it, both
> of which have a .first of 0. (I believe because of an empty MBB in the
> function below, so StartIndex doesn't advance).
>
> scott
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Roman Levenstei...
2009 Jan 13
2
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in the ARM backend?
...if (!Reg)
continue;
// Ignore splited live intervals.
if (!isPhys && vrm_->getPreSplitReg(cur.reg))
continue;
for (LiveInterval::Ranges::const_iterator I = cur.begin(), E = cur.end();
I != E; ++I) {
const LiveRange &LR = *I;
if (li_->findLiveInMBBs(LR.start, LR.end, LiveInMBBs)) {
for (unsigned i = 0, e = LiveInMBBs.size(); i != e; ++i)
if (LiveInMBBs[i] != EntryMBB)
LiveInMBBs[i]->addLiveIn(Reg);
LiveInMBBs.clear();
}
}
}
If it is the case, it is OK. It was not clear for me that one has t...
2008 Apr 16
3
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in LiveIntervalAnalysis?
Hi,
In the LiveIntervalAnalysis::runOnMachineFunction, there is a code to
compute the MBB2IdxMap, by remembering for each MBB its start and end
instruction numbers:
unsigned MIIndex = 0;
for (MachineFunction::iterator MBB = mf_->begin(), E = mf_->end();
MBB != E; ++MBB) {
unsigned StartIdx = MIIndex;
for (MachineBasicBlock::iterator I = MBB->begin(), E =
2009 Jan 13
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in the ARM backend?
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Roman Levenstein <romix.llvm at googlemail.com
> wrote:
> 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>:
>>
>> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote:
>>
>>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1:
>>> Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0)
>>> %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0,
2009 Jan 13
2
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in the ARM backend?
2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>:
>
> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote:
>
>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1:
>> Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0)
>> %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0, %reg0
>> *** STR %LR<kill>, %R0<kill>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0, Mem:ST(4,4)
>> [0x8fc2d68 + 0]