Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "isbundledwithpr".
Did you mean:
isbundledwithpred
2013 Feb 04
2
[LLVMdev] Asserts in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc()
...intent. Maybe a bit temporal but sound nevertheless.
> finalizeBundle is calling 'MIBundleBuilder Bundle(MBB, FirstMI,
> LastMI)' which ought to work with pre-bundled instructions.
Not exactly. Let me illustrate couple cases here (for illustration purposes
"^" means "isBundledWithPred()" and "v" means "isBundledWithSucc()"):
I have the following (existing) bundle for which I want to regenerate the
bundle header (You see that %R17 is not currently in the def list for the
bundle header).
v BUNDLE %P3<imp-def>, %R29<imp-use>, %D8<imp-...
2013 Feb 04
0
[LLVMdev] Asserts in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc()
...but sound nevertheless.
>
>> finalizeBundle is calling 'MIBundleBuilder Bundle(MBB, FirstMI,
>> LastMI)' which ought to work with pre-bundled instructions.
>
> Not exactly. Let me illustrate couple cases here (for illustration purposes
> "^" means "isBundledWithPred()" and "v" means "isBundledWithSucc()"):
>
> I have the following (existing) bundle for which I want to regenerate the
> bundle header (You see that %R17 is not currently in the def list for the
> bundle header).
>
>
> v BUNDLE %P3<imp-def>...
2013 Feb 01
4
[LLVMdev] Asserts in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc()
...t because of these asserts I now have to unbundle all, and
re-bundle them right back again for no obvious benefit...
In other words, may I suggest removing them rather than adding new
methods?... or do you have a better suggestion?
Thanks.
Sergei
void MachineInstr::bundleWithPred() {
assert(!isBundledWithPred() && "MI is already bundled with its
predecessor"); <<<<<<<<<<<<
setFlag(BundledPred);
MachineBasicBlock::instr_iterator Pred = this;
--Pred;
assert(!Pred->isBundledWithSucc() && "Inconsistent bundle flags");
<&...
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()
...; >
> >> finalizeBundle is calling 'MIBundleBuilder Bundle(MBB, FirstMI,
> >> LastMI)' which ought to work with pre-bundled instructions.
> >
> > Not exactly. Let me illustrate couple cases here (for illustration
> > purposes "^" means "isBundledWithPred()" and "v" means
> "isBundledWithSucc()"):
> >
> > I have the following (existing) bundle for which I want to regenerate
> > the bundle header (You see that %R17 is not currently in the def list
> > for the bundle header).
> >
> >
&g...