search for: pr13719

Hi Sergei, I just fixed the broken test case for PR13719 with r163107, but from the debugging output you've posted it suspect it won't fix your test case. Your analysis looks good - findLastUseBefore(..) doesn't appear to be handling physregs. I'm surprised that isn't causing more failures. I'll see if I can find a failing case i...

On Sep 2, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sergei, > > I just fixed the broken test case for PR13719 with r163107, but from the debugging output you've posted it suspect it won't fix your test case. > > Your analysis looks good - findLastUseBefore(..) doesn't appear to be handling physregs. I'm surprised that isn't causing more failures. I'll see if I can find a fail...

Hi Sergei, Andy, Sorry - I got distracted with some other work. I'm looking into this and PR13719 now. I'll let you know what I find out. Sergei - thanks very much for the investigation. That should help me pin this down. Cheers, Lang. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Andy, Lang, > > Thanks for the suggestion. > >...

...Lang Hames [mailto:lhames at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:17 PM To: Sergei Larin Cc: Andrew Trick; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update Hi Sergei, Andy, Sorry - I got distracted with some other work. I'm looking into this and PR13719 now. I'll let you know what I find out. Sergei - thanks very much for the investigation. That should help me pin this down. Cheers, Lang. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: Andy, Lang, Thanks for the suggestion. I have spen...

...Lang Hames [mailto:lhames at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:17 PM To: Sergei Larin Cc: Andrew Trick; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Assert in LiveInterval update Hi Sergei, Andy, Sorry - I got distracted with some other work. I'm looking into this and PR13719 now. I'll let you know what I find out. Sergei - thanks very much for the investigation. That should help me pin this down. Cheers, Lang. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: Andy, Lang, Thanks for the suggestion. I have spen...

...r::pickNode for an example. I don't see an equivalent > check in ConvergingScheduler, but there probably should be. > > Another possibility to consider is something strange with DebugValues, > which I haven't tested much. > > I reproduced the same assert on arm and filed PR13719. I'm not sure yet > if it's exactly the same issue, but we can move the discussion there. > > We need a better assert in live update and probably the scheduler too. > Lang mentioned he may look at the issue today. Meanwhile, I hope my > suggestion above helps. > > -An...

...ckNode. See InstructionShuffler::pickNode for an example. I don't see an equivalent check in ConvergingScheduler, but there probably should be. Another possibility to consider is something strange with DebugValues, which I haven't tested much. I reproduced the same assert on arm and filed PR13719. I'm not sure yet if it's exactly the same issue, but we can move the discussion there. We need a better assert in live update and probably the scheduler too. Lang mentioned he may look at the issue today. Meanwhile, I hope my suggestion above helps. -Andy

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) {

...ntroduce some subtle bugs. Cheers, Lang. On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Sergei, > > > > I just fixed the broken test case for PR13719 with r163107, but from the > debugging output you've posted it suspect it won't fix your test case. > > > > Your analysis looks good - findLastUseBefore(..) doesn't appear to be > handling physregs. I'm surprised that isn't causing more failures. I'll see &...

...t see an > > equivalent check in ConvergingScheduler, but there probably should > be. > > > > Another possibility to consider is something strange with > DebugValues, > > which I haven't tested much. > > > > I reproduced the same assert on arm and filed PR13719. I'm not sure > > yet if it's exactly the same issue, but we can move the discussion > there. > > > > We need a better assert in live update and probably the scheduler > too. > > Lang mentioned he may look at the issue today. Meanwhile, I hope my > > sugg...

...t check in ConvergingScheduler, but there probably should >> be. >> > >> > Another possibility to consider is something strange with >> DebugValues, >> > which I haven't tested much. >> > >> > I reproduced the same assert on arm and filed PR13719. I'm not sure >> > yet if it's exactly the same issue, but we can move the discussion >> there. >> > >> > We need a better assert in live update and probably the scheduler >> too. >> > Lang mentioned he may look at the issue today. Meanwhile,...

...there probably should > >> be. > >> > > >> > Another possibility to consider is something strange with > >> DebugValues, > >> > which I haven't tested much. > >> > > >> > I reproduced the same assert on arm and filed PR13719. I'm not > sure > >> > yet if it's exactly the same issue, but we can move the discussion > >> there. > >> > > >> > We need a better assert in live update and probably the scheduler > >> too. > >> > Lang mentioned he may l...