search for: handlesetedgecost

...all-zeroes. Y and Z are overlapping and already have an interference edge. Z is just on the limit of not being conservatively allocatable: NumOpts is 8 and DeniedOpts is also 8. It is contained in NotProvablyAllocatableNodes. G.setEdgeCosts() is called and then the call stack grows with Solver->handleSetEdgeCosts(), handleRemoveEdge() into handleDisconnectEdge(), where NMd.handleRemoveEdge() is called, which decreases the DeniedOpts by one. After this, it looks like a bug to me that Z is moved to ConservativelyAllocatableNodes, because eventually handleSetEdgeCosts() will complete, and the edge between Y a...

...are overlapping and already have an > interference edge. Z is just on the limit of not being conservatively > allocatable: NumOpts is 8 and DeniedOpts is also 8. It is contained in > NotProvablyAllocatableNodes. G.setEdgeCosts() is called and then the call > stack grows with Solver->handleSetEdgeCosts(), handleRemoveEdge() into > handleDisconnectEdge(), where NMd.handleRemoveEdge() is called, which > decreases the DeniedOpts by one. After this, it looks like a bug to me that > Z is moved to ConservativelyAllocatableNodes, because eventually > handleSetEdgeCosts() will complete, and...

> A node should never be put into the conservatively allocatable list if there is a chance of it spilling. I can understand why the logic of NodeMetadata::isConservativelyAllocatable is necessary for the node to be allocatable, but I have not been able to convince myself this is sufficient, especially when the node degree > available registers. Cheers, Arnaud From: