search for: oldindex

...on, and subsequent calls go through next_description: def index @description_index = 0 @description = get_current_description end # Called by ajax call; renders the partial directly after # determining next row to show def next_description @allrows = find_all @description_index = params[:oldindex] + 1 # if we''ve shown all, then start over again if (@description_index > @allrows.length) @description_index = 0 end @description = get_current_description render :partial => ''currentdescription'' end def get_current_description @allrows[@descriptio...

...lotIndex renumbering: *** Renumbered SlotIndexes 24-56 *** So my 48B becomes 56B, so after the update new live ranges look like this: R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... ___BUT____ after the u...

...Indexes 24-56 *** > > So my 48B becomes 56B, so after the update new live ranges look like this: > > R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... > R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... > R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... > > Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B (also > new > after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). > collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and > correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 > > [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > [0B,56r:0)[352r,...

...lotIndex renumbering: *** Renumbered SlotIndexes 24-56 *** So my 48B becomes 56B, so after the update new live ranges look like this: R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... ___BUT____ after the u...

...24-56 *** > > So my 48B becomes 56B, so after the update new live ranges look like > this: > > R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... > R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... > R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... > > Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B > (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). > collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and > correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 > > [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r...

...lotIndex renumbering: *** Renumbered SlotIndexes 24-56 *** So my 48B becomes 56B, so after the update new live ranges look like this: R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... ___BUT____ after the u...

...becomes 56B, so after the update new live ranges look like >> this: >> >> R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... >> R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... >> R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... >> R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... >> >> Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B >> (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). >> collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and >> correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 >> >> [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... >&g...

On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > I've described that issue (see below) when you were out of town... I think > I am getting more context on it. Please take a look... > > So, in short, when the new MI scheduler performs move of an instruction, it > does something like this: > > // Move the instruction to its new

...ve ranges look like > >> this: > >> > >> R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... > >> R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > >> R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... > >> R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... > >> > >> Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B > >> (also new after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). > >> collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, > and > >> correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 > >> > >> [0B...

...Indexes 24-56 *** > > So my 48B becomes 56B, so after the update new live ranges look like this: > > R2 = [0B,56r:0)[352r,416r:5)... > R3 = [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > R4 = [0B,48r:0)[384r,416r:4)... > R5 = [0B,48r:0)[400r,416r:4)... > > Then in LiveIntervals::handleMove OldIndex 56B and NewIndex is 32B (also > new > after renumbering. But happens to match another old one). > collectRanges for MI figures that it is moving a paired register, and > correctly(?) selects these two ranges to update for %R2:R3 > > [0B,56r:0)[368r,416r:5)... > [0B,56r:0)[352r,...

Andy, I've described that issue (see below) when you were out of town... I think I am getting more context on it. Please take a look... So, in short, when the new MI scheduler performs move of an instruction, it does something like this: // Move the instruction to its new location in the instruction stream. MachineInstr *MI = SU->getInstr(); if (IsTopNode) {