Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "formal_args_3".
2014 Oct 29
2
[LLVMdev] Virtual register def doesn't dominate all uses
...if (N -> isMachineOpcode()) {
N -> setNodeId(-1);
return NULL; // Already selected.
}
SDNode *res = SelectCode(N);
return res;
}
Is that too simple? There are no further passes that eliminate anything.
Anyway, I have another test program, that could point to my bug:
int formal_args_3(int p1, int p2, int p3)
{
int v1 = p1;
int v2 = p2;
int v3 = p3;
int res = v1 + v2;
return(res);
}
I can compile this test and I get correct code. With option -view-sched-dags I can verify that all arguments are stored in the stack-frame, the local variables are initialized (several sto...
2014 Oct 31
2
[LLVMdev] Virtual register def doesn't dominate all uses
.../ Already selected.
>> }
>> SDNode *res = SelectCode(N);
>> return res;
>> }
>>
>> Is that too simple? There are no further passes that eliminate anything.
>>
>> Anyway, I have another test program, that could point to my bug:
>>
>> int formal_args_3(int p1, int p2, int p3)
>> {
>> int v1 = p1;
>> int v2 = p2;
>> int v3 = p3;
>> int res = v1 + v2;
>> return(res);
>> }
>>
>> I can compile this test and I get correct code. With option -view-sched-dags I can verify that all arguments are store...
2014 Nov 01
2
[LLVMdev] Virtual register def doesn't dominate all uses
...(N);
>>>> return res;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Is that too simple? There are no further passes that eliminate anything.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I have another test program, that could point to my bug:
>>>>
>>>> int formal_args_3(int p1, int p2, int p3)
>>>> {
>>>> int v1 = p1;
>>>> int v2 = p2;
>>>> int v3 = p3;
>>>> int res = v1 + v2;
>>>> return(res);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I can compile this test and I get correct code...
2014 Oct 24
2
[LLVMdev] Virtual register def doesn't dominate all uses
Hi!
During my backend development I get the error message for some tests:
*** Bad machine code: Virtual register def doesn't dominate all uses. ***
(C source-code, byte-code disassembly and printed machine code at the end of the email)
The first USE of vreg4 in BB#1 has no previous DEF in BB#0 or #1. But why? I can't see how the LLVM byte-code is transformed to the lower machine code.