Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "implicit_def_gpr".
Did you mean:
implicit_def_gprc
2006 Jun 30
3
[LLVMdev] Removing dead code
...try (0x8605ba0, LLVM BB @0x8602d30):
%reg1024 = OR4 %r3, %r3
%reg1025 = OR4 %r4, %r4
%reg1026 = LWZ 0, %reg1025
%reg1027 = LIS <ga:.str_1>
%reg1028 = LIS <ga:.str_2>
%reg1029 = LBZ 0, %reg1026
ADJCALLSTACKDOWN 56
%reg1030 = IMPLICIT_DEF_GPR
%reg1031 = LA %reg1027, <ga:.str_1>
%r3 = OR4 %reg1031, %reg1031
BL <ga:printf>, %r3
%reg1032 = OR4 %r3, %r3 <-------------------
%reg1033 = EXTSB %reg1029
%reg1034 = LA %reg1028, <ga:.str_2>
ADJCALLSTACKUP 56...
2006 Jun 30
0
[LLVMdev] Removing dead code
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote:
> I am working in a register allocator for LLVM, and I realized that,
> after I perform register allocation, there is many move instructions that
> are dead code, and can safely be removed. It is easy for the RA algorithm
> to remove these instructions. It seems to me that the only instructions
> with dead definitions
2006 Jun 30
2
[LLVMdev] Removing dead code
Dear guys,
I am working in a register allocator for LLVM, and I realized that,
after I perform register allocation, there is many move instructions that
are dead code, and can safely be removed. It is easy for the RA algorithm
to remove these instructions. It seems to me that the only instructions
with dead definitions that I should not remove are the calls. Is it true?
I would like to know