search for: getinstrs

Hi, I would like to ask what IssueWidth and NumMicroOps refer to in MachineScheduler, just to be 100% sure what the intent is. Are we modeling the decoder phase or the execution stage? Background: First of all, there seems to be different meanings of "issue" depending on which platform you're on:

Andy, I've described that issue (see below) when you were out of town... I think I am getting more context on it. Please take a look... So, in short, when the new MI scheduler performs move of an instruction, it does something like this: // Move the instruction to its new location in the instruction stream. MachineInstr *MI = SU->getInstr(); if (IsTopNode) {

On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > I've described that issue (see below) when you were out of town... I think > I am getting more context on it. Please take a look... > > So, in short, when the new MI scheduler performs move of an instruction, it > does something like this: > > // Move the instruction to its new

Andy, Lang, Thanks for the suggestion. I have spent more time with it today, and I do see some strange things in liveness update. I am not at the actual cause yet, but here is what I got so far: I have the following live ranges when I start scheduling a region: R2 = [0B,48r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)... R4 = [0B,32r:0)[384r,416r:4)... R5 = [0B,32r:0)[400r,416r:4)...

> On May 9, 2018, at 9:43 AM, Jonas Paulsson <paulsson at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to ask what IssueWidth and NumMicroOps refer to in MachineScheduler, just to be 100% sure what the intent is. > Are we modeling the decoder phase or the execution stage? > > Background: > > First of all, there seems to be different meanings of

Hi Sergei, Andy, Sorry - I got distracted with some other work. I'm looking into this and PR13719 now. I'll let you know what I find out. Sergei - thanks very much for the investigation. That should help me pin this down. Cheers, Lang. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Andy, Lang, > > Thanks for the suggestion. >

Andy, I traced my problem to this point: In ScheduleDAGInstrs.cpp we have the following function: /// addVRegDefDeps - Add register output and data dependencies from this SUnit /// to instructions that occur later in the same scheduling region if they read /// from or write to the virtual register defined at OperIdx. /// /// TODO: Hoist loop induction variable increments. This has to be ///

Hi Lang, Just one more quick question. in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp In SlotIndex findLastUseBefore(unsigned Reg, SlotIndex OldIdx) Did you really mean to use for (MachineRegisterInfo::use_nodbg_iterator UI = MRI.use_nodbg_begin(Reg), UE = MRI.use_nodbg_end(); UI != UE; UI.skipInstruction()) {} Aren't we currently dealing with units,

Hello again, Sorry -- I think I found the problem somewhere else. I was a bit confused and missed the fact that adjustChainDeps() is called a few lines down and does just what I wanted :-) I would like to instead ask another question: Why is I->isCtrl() used in code like // Iterate over chain dependencies only. for (SUnit::const_succ_iterator I = SUb->Succs.begin(), E =

Hello Jakob and everyone, I am observing an issue with MCRegUnitIterator in my back end, and trying to reverse engineer some of the table gen magic around it, but if you or someone readily knows the answer, I would highly appreciate it. Here is the problem. In my back end we have a rather simple int register file structure: // Integer registers. def R0 : Ri< 0, "r0">,

Hi, Can anyone help me to understand the ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph() method? I find the handling of AliasChain is disturbing since: 1. A new alias chain add deps to all possibly aliasing SUs, and then clears those lists. 2. When AliasChain is present, the addChainDependency() method is called, but the target hook areMemAccessesTriviallyDisjoint() called inside

Lang, I think I am getting closer to understanding this. The findLastUseBefore() should probably look something like this: // Return the last use of reg between NewIdx and OldIdx. SlotIndex findLastUseBefore(unsigned Reg, SlotIndex OldIdx) { SlotIndex LastUse = NewIdx; if (TargetRegisterInfo::isPhysicalRegister(Reg)) { for (MCRegUnitRootIterator Roots(Reg,

I’m less interested in literally passing the output of one as an argument to the next such that argument evaluation order matters. Intermediate register variables are fine. It would still be less code to have tmp = buildFoo(), buildFoo(tmp) than the current code required to manage the register -Matt From: <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com> on behalf of Daniel Sanders <daniel_l_sanders at

Hi Sergei, Register units != sub registers. Register units are an abstraction to describe overlapping of registers effectively. You probably wanted to use MCSubRegIterator. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hello Jakob and everyone, > > I am observing an issue with MCRegUnitIterator in my back end, and trying > to reverse

Andy, Jacob, I have ported Hexagon MI scheduler to use the new scheduler infrastructure, but one of my tests triggers an assert in LiveInterval update. On the surface it does not make much sense to me, so I wonder if this is something you readily recognize, before I try to prop it open... The assert is: lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:266: llvm::LiveRange*

Andy, Thanks for reply. I was able to trace the problem to the MI DAG dep constructor. See this: SU(0): %vreg1<def> = COPY %vreg10<kill>; IntRegs:%vreg1,%vreg10 # preds left : 0 # succs left : 0 # rdefs left : 1 Latency : 1 Depth : 0 Height : 0 SU(1): %vreg10<def> = LDriw %vreg9<kill>, 0;

Hi, Thank you for the reply. >It looks to me like we can choose any subset of edges here and be correct. We're basically trying to prune/pinch the DAG edges here. They can easily blow up with AA sched. I would guess that isCtrl() edges are good ones to bypass because they could be a low-latecy edges, whereas true data dependencies from a load are expected to be >higher latency, so they

Arnold, It is not my code per say - this is what is done in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp collectRanges(), it wants to iterate over "units" of D1 (whatever they are assumed to be), but right there it associates them with actual physical register live ranges (see the tread below), and it does it wrongly. I was trying to pinpoint exactly to where the issue is, but there are too many

Hi Sergei, I just fixed the broken test case for PR13719 with r163107, but from the debugging output you've posted it suspect it won't fix your test case. Your analysis looks good - findLastUseBefore(..) doesn't appear to be handling physregs. I'm surprised that isn't causing more failures. I'll see if I can find a failing case in the LLVM test-suite (it's been a

On Aug 13, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Andy, > > Yes, this is what Arnold has suggested also, and from this point it looks > like it should work, but it will require parsing the bundle every time we > care to know whether this is a real use or a conditional def. This might > become awkward... but I guess I should provide a better