search for: islegaltoprunedepend

DFAPacketizer has a virtual method isLegalToPruneDependencies(). I looked at the Hexagon code and but wasn't unable to understand the details (unfortunately as of now, I'm not well versed in the Hexagon architecture). Would anyone be able to shed light on what is dependency pruning and how it should be used? Any help is appreciated. -- R ---...

...; namespace { class R600Packetizer : public VLIWPacketizerList { public: R600Packetizer(MachineFunction &MF, MachineLoopInfo &MLI, MachineDominatorTree &MDT, LiveIntervals * LIS); virtual bool isLegalToPacketizeTogether(SUnit *SUI, SUnit * SUJ); virtual bool isLegalToPruneDependencies(SUnit *SUI, SUnit * SUJ); }; R600Packetizer::R600Packetizer(MachineFunction &MF, MachineLoopInfo &MLI, MachineDominatorTree &MDT, LiveIntervals * LIS) : VLIWPacketizerList(MF, MLI, MDT, false /* isPostRA */, LIS) { } bool R600Packetizer::isLegalT...

...)/ > MoveMIAfterBundle(MI, BundleHeader). Calling this repeatedly should > achieve desired effect -- remove what could be removed, and live what > needs to remain bundled intact. The move utility can change > instruction properly for each target./* > That's explains the hook isLegalToPruneDependencies() in the packetizer :-). I don't see why that case cannot be handled by the existent model and needs that kind of API's. For example, if 'add' needs to be rematted, it's possible as long as all its operands are available at the remat position. The same holds for 'c...

...undle(MI, BundleHeader). Calling this repeatedly should >> achieve desired effect – remove what could be removed, and live what >> needs to remain bundled intact. The move utility can change >> instruction properly for each target./* >> > > That's explains the hook isLegalToPruneDependencies() in the packetizer :-). > > I don't see why that case cannot be handled by the existent model and > needs that kind of API's. For example, if 'add' needs to be rematted, > it's possible as long as all its operands are available at the remat > position. The...

Jakob, Please see my comments below. Hope this helps. Sergei -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum. From: Jakob Stoklund Olesen [mailto:stoklund at 2pi.dk] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:02 PM To: Sergei Larin Cc: 'Ivan Llopard'; 'LLVM Developers Mailing List' Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Instruction bundles before RA: Rematerialization

On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:25 AM, "Sergei Larin" <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Generally as far as I concern, there is no way “generic” (platform independent) code can add instructions to bundles optimally I agree, there are too many ways of modeling stuff with bundles. That is why I took the philosophical stance of treating bundles as black boxes during RA. I think the

...lf is a packet. >> + virtual bool isSoloInstruction(MachineInstr *MI) { >> + return true; >> + } >> >> // isLegalToPacketizeTogether - Is it legal to packetize SUI and SUJ >> // together. >> @@ -141,6 +160,7 @@ public: >> virtual bool isLegalToPruneDependencies(SUnit *SUI, SUnit *SUJ) { >> return false; >> } >> + >> }; >> } >> >> diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/DFAPacketizer.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/DFAPacketizer.cpp >> index 5ff641c..bfbe779 100644 >> --- a/lib/CodeGen/DFAPacketizer.cpp >>...