search for: peis

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Dan, can you add IVUsers.cpp to the appropriate cmakefile? > > -chris > > > On May 12, 2009, at 10:54 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote: > >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On May 12, 2009, at 10:24 PM,

In ARM the stack should be 8 bytes aligned during function calls. A function that has at least one function call then has a stack size of 8 bytes. PEI::calculateFrameObjectOffsets corretly computes this correctly. The problem is that the alignment is computed before adding space for the call frame size. This is done in emitProlog. Currently the ARM backend has a bug in that it doesn't align

> That is irrelevant. The PEI code needs to know how much stack space is > required for each call to allocate and align the stack frame properly. It > gets this info from the ADJCALLSTACK instructions. I see. Looking at PEI::calculateCalleeSavedRegisters shows that the ADJCALLSTACK instructions is used to set up MaxCallFrameSize. Adding debug prints also show that in the example code

> This sounds like the ADJCALLSTACK DOWN/UP 'instructions' around the call > aren't set right, or you have declared a SP offset. It doesn't look like > the ARM backend does this, so this is probably the problem. The ARM backend currently doesn't use a frame pointer. It uses the same technique of the PPC backend to avoid add/subs around calls. In the PPC backend we

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, [UTF-8] Rafael Esp?ndola wrote: >> This sounds like the ADJCALLSTACK DOWN/UP 'instructions' around the call >> aren't set right, or you have declared a SP offset. It doesn't look like >> the ARM backend does this, so this is probably the problem. > The ARM backend currently doesn't use a frame pointer. It uses the > same technique

Does not seem to be a straight error with LLVM itself, but rather the tools, linking issues, here are the errors: Opt: 30> Creating library R:\SDKs\llvm\trunk_VC8_building\lib\Debug\opt.lib and object R:\SDKs\llvm\trunk_VC8_building\lib\Debug\opt.exp 30>LLVMScalarOpts.lib(IndVarSimplify.obj) : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol "public: bool __thiscall

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, [UTF-8] Rafael Esp?ndola wrote: > In ARM the stack should be 8 bytes aligned during function calls. A > function that has at least one function call then has a stack size of > 8 bytes. PEI::calculateFrameObjectOffsets corretly computes this > correctly. > > The problem is that the alignment is computed before adding space for > the call frame size. This is

Regarding patches 5-7, it seems like the mem-map code flow could be more shared. It is a bit challenging to unravel things though. I guess the only specific thing I can really point out is that PcdPciAllowFullEnumeration should be initialized in a different patch, and not within the mem-map init path. -Jordan On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote: > This

I would like a customized version of the function PEI::calculateFrameObjectOffsets() in PrologEpilogInserter.cpp. What is the clean way to do this?

Hi, My backend (based on version 3.8) was hanging in an infinite loop in the Prolog/Epilog Inserter. After investigation, it appears that it was looping in the first level loop of the PEI::replaceFrameIndices() method: processing the second instruction of the block again and again... This loop never exits because the iterator is 'skipped backward' under some condition in the middle of

Bruce, Thanks for the explanation. But based on my inspection on the source code, it seems that materialization is related to lazily reading LLVM objects (Module, Function, etc.) into the memory from bitcode files, which is possibly useful during LTO. I’m not sure though. Pei From: <bruce.hoult at gmail.com> on behalf of Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> Date: Wednesday, June 28,

I’m current debugging one of my LLVM passes which utilized inline assembly. I constantly encounter crashes related to “value materialization”, according to the error messages I received. It seems a big concept in LLVM (or maybe generally in compilation), but I cannot find any document that is comprehensive enough to help me understand what exactly materialization is for. Could someone offer some

Hi, all: My folders are organized in such a way: root ----branch1 ---------------A -----------------------file1.txt -----------------------file2.txt ---------------B -----------------------file1.txt -----------------------file2.txt ----branch2 ---------------A -----------------------file1.txt -----------------------file2.txt ---------------B -----------------------file1.txt

we started using an ocfs file system about 4 months ago as the shared archived redo destination for the 4-node rac instances (HP dl380, msa1000, RH AS 2.1) . last night we are seeing some weird behavior, and my guess is the inode directory in the file system is getting corrupted. I've always had a bad feeling about OCFS not being very robust at handling constant file creation and deletion

On 08/26/2010 13:17, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>> Insn before the error: TCRETURNri64 %RAX<kill>, 0, %RDI<kill>, >>> %RAX<imp-def,dead>, %RDI<imp-def,dead>, %RSP<imp-use>, ... >> >> Odd. I thought TCReturn was being lowered. At any rate can you file >> a bug with the .ll file that causes this? > > It should be getting

Hi all, Virtual ISAs such as WebAssembly and NVPTX use infinite virtual register sets instead of traditional phsyical registers. PrologEpilogInserter is run after register allocation and asserts that all virtuals have been allocated but doesn't otherwise depend on this if scavenging is not needed. We'd like to use the target-independent PEI code for WebAssembly, so we're proposing a

Hi Jakob, I have spent last 4 weeks trying to figure out how to implement Interprocedural Register Allocation. I must admit that I was really overwhelmed with LLVM's codebase while trying to figure this out :) There is so much to know! I think I have reached a point where I have some sort of basic understanding of what needs to be done, but I need some help from here on. So here is the

Hi John, It looks pretty good. Thanks for working on this. Some comments: 1. Some of the functions that you introduced, e.g. stringifyCSRegSet probably ought to be "static" and ifdef'ed out when NDEBUG is defined. 2. + // DEBUG + if (! MBB->empty() && ! CSRUsed[MBB].intersects(restore)) { + MachineInstr* MI = BeforeI; + DOUT <<

On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:59 PMPDT, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Yuri wrote: >> On 08/26/2010 11:53, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> Could you get it to print out the instruction when it happens? >>> (just change the line above the error message to print it out to >>> errs()). >>> >>> It basically means that a pseudo

On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:34 PMPDT, Yuri wrote: > On 08/26/2010 13:17, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>>> Insn before the error: TCRETURNri64 %RAX<kill>, 0, %RDI<kill>, >>>> %RAX<imp-def,dead>, %RDI<imp-def,dead>, %RSP<imp-use>, ... >>> >>> Odd. I thought TCReturn was being lowered. At any rate can you >>> file a bug