search for: fixedstack3

Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "fixedstack3".

Did you mean: fixedstack
2011 Aug 06
0
[LLVMdev] How to differ from read and write operations for general stack objects
...ead>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>, %ESP<imp-use>* * MOV32mi <fi#1>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0, 0* * %ECX<def> = MOV32rm <fi#1>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0* * MOV32mr <fi#0>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0, %ECX<kill>* * MOV32mr <fi#3>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0, %EAX<kill>; mem:ST4[FixedStack3]* It seems the ways to identify read/write are different for virtual registers, and stack objects. For virtual registers, we could use the MachineOperand::isDef() and MachineOperand::isUse. For stack objects used for argument-passing (see mem:ST4[Stack] in the example) or return-value (see mem:ST4...
2013 Feb 04
2
[LLVMdev] Asserts in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc()
...not currently in the def list for the bundle header). v BUNDLE %P3<imp-def>, %R29<imp-use>, %D8<imp-use,kill>, %D9<imp-use,kill>, %R6<imp-use> *^v STrid_indexed %R29, 80, %D8<kill>; mem:ST8[FixedStack2] *^v STrid_indexed %R29, 72, %D9<kill>; mem:ST8[FixedStack3] *^v %P3<def> = CMPEQri %R6, 0 *^ %R17<def> = TFR_cdnNotPt %P3<internal>, %R1 v BUNDLE %R29<imp-use>, %D10<imp-use,kill>, %R7<imp-use>, %D6<imp-use> (next bundle). finalizeBundle() is called with: FirstMI == STrid_indexed %R29, 80, %D8<kill>;...
2013 Feb 04
0
[LLVMdev] Asserts in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc()
...the > bundle header). > > > v BUNDLE %P3<imp-def>, %R29<imp-use>, %D8<imp-use,kill>, > %D9<imp-use,kill>, %R6<imp-use> > *^v STrid_indexed %R29, 80, %D8<kill>; mem:ST8[FixedStack2] > *^v STrid_indexed %R29, 72, %D9<kill>; mem:ST8[FixedStack3] > *^v %P3<def> = CMPEQri %R6, 0 > *^ %R17<def> = TFR_cdnNotPt %P3<internal>, %R1 > v BUNDLE %R29<imp-use>, %D10<imp-use,kill>, %R7<imp-use>, %D6<imp-use> > (next bundle). > > finalizeBundle() is called with: > > FirstMI == ST...
2013 Feb 02
0
[LLVMdev] Asserts in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc()
On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Sergei Larin" <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I have a question about the following (four) asserts recently added in > bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc() (see below). What is the real danger > of reasserting a connection even if it already exist? The intention was to identify code that may have been converted from the old style a
2013 Feb 04
2
[LLVMdev] Asserts in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc()
...t; > > > > > v BUNDLE %P3<imp-def>, %R29<imp-use>, %D8<imp-use,kill>, > > %D9<imp-use,kill>, %R6<imp-use> *^v STrid_indexed %R29, 80, > > %D8<kill>; mem:ST8[FixedStack2] *^v STrid_indexed %R29, 72, > > %D9<kill>; mem:ST8[FixedStack3] *^v %P3<def> = CMPEQri %R6, 0 > > *^ %R17<def> = TFR_cdnNotPt %P3<internal>, %R1 > > v BUNDLE %R29<imp-use>, %D10<imp-use,kill>, %R7<imp-use>, > > %D6<imp-use> (next bundle). > > > > finalizeBundle() is called with: >...
2013 Feb 01
4
[LLVMdev] Asserts in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc()
Jakob, I have a question about the following (four) asserts recently added in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc() (see below). What is the real danger of reasserting a connection even if it already exist? My problem with them happens when I try to call finalizeBundle() on an existing bundle to which I have added a new instruction. The goal - a new bundle header with liveness abbreviation, but