search for: localrewriter

...hat the implicit-def operand that was added in this case ended up as #4, out of 6, when the operands list was reallocated in addOperand(). If addOperand was rewritten, I think it's best not to add my fix for ProcessUses(), as I wrote earlier. Jonas Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] VirtRegRewriter.cpp: LocalRewriter::ProcessUses() From: stoklund at 2pi.dk Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:14:52 -0700 CC: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu To: jnspaulsson at hotmail.com On Oct 7, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote:Hi, I think I've found a bug in this method. I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operan...

On Oct 7, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote: > Hi, > > I think I've found a bug in this method. > > I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. > > For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: > >

Hi, I think I've found a bug in this method. I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: VirtUseOps.insert(VirtUseOps.begin(), MI.getNumOperands()); MI.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreateReg(VirtReg,

R.I.P. SimpleRewriter. If anyone needs it resurrected let me know. This leaves LocalRewriter (the default) and the new TrivialRewriter, which is for use only with the new in-place spilling framework. This framework appears (if you squint just right) to be basically functional now, but it produces awful code. If you want to play with it you can invoke it with the magical combination of &quo...

On Thursday 04 June 2009 13:57, Lang Hames wrote: > R.I.P. SimpleRewriter. If anyone needs it resurrected let me know. > > This leaves LocalRewriter (the default) and the new TrivialRewriter, > which is for use only with the new in-place spilling framework. This > framework appears (if you squint just right) to be basically > functional now, but it produces awful code. If you want to play with > it you can invoke it with the magical...

On Jun 3, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > I vote for execution of SimpleRewriter. Yeah, go ahead and axe it: Off with its head! -Chris > > > Evan > > On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Lang Hames wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Is anyone still using SimpleRewriter (formerly known as >> SimpleSpiller)? A quick check with the test suite suggests that it's

...RegMap. The work is in the very early stages though. - Lang. On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > On Thursday 04 June 2009 13:57, Lang Hames wrote: >> R.I.P. SimpleRewriter. If anyone needs it resurrected let me know. >> >> This leaves LocalRewriter (the default) and the new TrivialRewriter, >> which is for use only with the new in-place spilling framework. This >> framework appears (if you squint just right) to be basically >> functional now, but it produces awful code. If you want to play with >> it you can invoke it...

...namespace)::AvailableSpills::AddAvailableRegsToLiveIn(llvm::MachineBasicBlock&, llvm::BitVector&, std::vector<llvm::MachineOperand*, std::allocator<llvm::MachineOperand*> >&) in libLLVMCodeGen.a(VirtRegRewriter.cpp.o) (anonymous namespace)::LocalRewriter::InsertEmergencySpills(llvm::MachineInstr*) in libLLVMCodeGen.a(VirtRegRewriter.cpp.o) llvm::InstrEmitter::EmitCopyFromReg(llvm::SDNode*, unsigned int, bool, bool, unsigned int, llvm::DenseMap<llvm::SDValue, unsigned int, llvm::DenseMapInfo<llvm::SDValue>, llvm::De...