Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "jumpo".
Did you mean:
jumbo
2009 Sep 04
3
[LLVMdev] ScheduleDAG Question
...buggy. But -disable-legalize-types doesn't fix the problem. So the
general legalize code seems to have the same issue.
LLVM 2.5 compiles this fine, so it's something we've altered in the codebase.
I did a diff of all of our changes to lib/CodeGen and include/llvm/CodeGen
but nothing jumpoed out as obviously wrong. I suppose it's possible we
present slightly different code to the legalize passes than the unmodified
LLVM.
Fun times, indeed.
-Dave
2009 Sep 04
0
[LLVMdev] ScheduleDAG Question
On Thursday 03 September 2009 20:41, Eli Friedman wrote:
> > My little testcase definitely has missing edges in the sched dag and
> > sunit dag. Where do edges from loads of globals to calls get added?
> > That's what's missing here.
>
> They should be there from the very beginning, when the selection dag is
> built.
Nope, not there. I've attached the
2009 Sep 04
0
[LLVMdev] ScheduleDAG Question
...galize-types doesn't fix the problem. So the
> general legalize code seems to have the same issue.
>
> LLVM 2.5 compiles this fine, so it's something we've altered in the codebase.
> I did a diff of all of our changes to lib/CodeGen and include/llvm/CodeGen
> but nothing jumpoed out as obviously wrong. I suppose it's possible we
> present slightly different code to the legalize passes than the unmodified
> LLVM.
>
> Fun times, indeed.
You might want to try the -debug dumps; it might be a bit easier to follow.
-Eli
2009 Sep 04
2
[LLVMdev] ScheduleDAG Question
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:55 PM, David Greene<dag at cray.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 03 September 2009 18:22, David Greene wrote:
>
>> > Since scheduling and selection is mostly within a block, hopefully it
>> > wouldn't be too hard to come up with a testcase?
>>
>> Yep, I've got a much reduced testcase now (and converted from Fortran
>> to C