search for: isschedulingboundari

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:57:27PM -0500, Sergei Larin wrote: > Tom, > > I do not have your call stack, but packetizer calls > ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph to create dependency model. If this is > the first time you use the new MI sched infrastructure (like your target has > not implemented misched yet) there might be some work needed to implement > couple target

On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:57:27PM -0500, Sergei Larin wrote: >> Tom, >> >> I do not have your call stack, but packetizer calls >> ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph to create dependency model. If this is >> the first time you use the new MI sched infrastructure (like your

Hi Tom, We also ran into the same issue when packetizing for Hexagon. Let me try to explain the problem: The scheduler breaks down a basic block into regions (look at MachineScheduler.cpp) - I believe for efficiency. There is an API isSchedulingBoundary to check if an instruction is a scheduling boundary or not. If it is a scheduling boundary, all existing instructions in the region are

I found myself wanting a "scheduling barrier" in LLVM. In my specific circumstances I only want it to mean that TargetInstrInfoImpl::isSchedulingBoundary() would return true. I added SchedulingBarrier to MCID in MCInstrDesc.h and pushed it through TD attributes down to isSchedulingBoundary(). Is this something of general interest, or is there another mechanism for implementing

Hi Tim, Thank you a lot for your reply. So IIUC, optimization passes in opt do not reorder IR instructions, only passes in llc that move MIR instructions around. Is it correct? On the back-end (llc) side, hasSideEffects might prevent some reordering. But I just learn about TargetInstrInfo::isSchedulingBoundary. Can you tell me what are the differences between the two please? Thank you very much

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 03:51:10PM -0700, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:57:27PM -0500, Sergei Larin wrote: > >> Tom, > >> > >> I do not have your call stack, but packetizer calls > >> ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph to create

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 01:50:58PM -0500, Sergei Larin wrote: > Tom, > > What is in your isSchedulingBoundary? If it contains isLabel you might > need to disable that assert: > > assert(!MI->isTerminator() && !MI->isLabel() && > "Cannot schedule terminators or labels!"); > > Sergei Larin > > -- > Qualcomm

Tom, I do not have your call stack, but packetizer calls ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph to create dependency model. If this is the first time you use the new MI sched infrastructure (like your target has not implemented misched yet) there might be some work needed to implement couple target hooks. isSchedulingBoundary is one of them. Also try to disable that assert and see what happens. It

Tom, What is in your isSchedulingBoundary? If it contains isLabel you might need to disable that assert: assert(!MI->isTerminator() && !MI->isLabel() && "Cannot schedule terminators or labels!"); Sergei Larin -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Stellard

Hi, I would like to access the AsmPrinter MachineFunctionPass during compilation in order to do alternative dumping of instructions, instead of using MI->dump(), which can get a bit messy. Is there any way to access this object or the assembler strings? It seems that even these strings / methods are not available through any static methods. Does it exist during the whole compilation or is it

Hi, I have a question regarding this method, as i have discovered a case where it seems very far from 'strict'. I had two MI's, A and B, where A is !isSafeToMove(): A B TwoAddress pass changes the order to B A , as it reschedules the LastKill MI (B). Is this a bug in TwoAdress, or is it the case that isSafeToMove() is weaker than isSchedulingBoundary() so that these indirect

Setting the MI as isTerminator should have the same impact, yes? I'm not sure of the other consequences of this though, if any, have to look into it. Thanks. -Ryan On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek < kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > You can override TargetInstrInfo::isSchedulingBoundary for that. > > -Krzysztof > > On 11/15/2016 4:13 PM, Ryan

Hi, I'm trying to use the VLIWPacketizerList to schedule instructions for the R600 target, and I'm running into this assertion failure: ScheduleDAGInstrs.cpp:558: Cannot schedule terminators or labels! I think I might not be using the VLIWPacketizerList class correctly. I've attached my code to this email. Can anyone spot what I'm doing wrong? Also, I had to add a LiveIntervals

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 22, 2016, at 11:20, Phil Tomson via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > We improved our instruction itineraries and now we're seeing our > testcases for fence instructions break. > > > > For example, we have this testcase: > >

We improved our instruction itineraries and now we're seeing our testcases for fence instructions break. For example, we have this testcase: @write_me = external global i32 @read_me = external global i32 ; Function Attrs: nounwind define i32 @xstg_intrinsic(i32 %foo) #0 { entry: ; CHECK: store r0, r1, 0, 32 ; CHECK-NEXT: fence 2 %foo.addr = alloca i32, align 4 store i32 %foo,

I have the same issue, would it be easier and more useful to attach a flag to the instruction to tell the scheduler not to move instructions across this boundary? -Ryan On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > You can create a DAG mutation that adds artificial dependencies between A, > B and Z. > > -Krzysztof >

Hello all, I want to add a custom intrinsic to the LLVM IR which would be lowered into a pseudo instruction since it doesn't correspond to any real instruction defined by the architecture. The speciality of this intrinsic/pseudo instruction that it should behave like a scheduling barrier: every instruction before the intrinsic has to be emitted before the intrinsic, the same goes for all

Sure I will split it and put it in two patches. Give me few hours. I need to test those patches. Sirish On 4/19/2012 8:40 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:18:05PM -0500, Sirish Pande wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here's a patch for Hexagon Packetizer for review. This patch does >> not yield any warnings. >> > Would it be possible to split this