search for: r2rmap_

...hat's a project for later. Doing this would increase compile time slightly as it would require an extra pass over the program. Is this ok? The problem is LiveIntervals::CreateNewLiveInterval. This member references LiveIntervals::rep, which as far as I can tell makes use of temporary state (r2rMap_) generated during the coalescing pass. My reading indicates that at final loop nest of LiveIntervals::runOnMachineFunction replaces operand registers with using rep() which makes use of r2rMap_. So why does LiveIntervals::CreateNewLiveInterval use r2rMap_? Actually, in the official sources, this...

...s were swapped by Join, swap them back so that the register 00370 // mapping (in the r2i map) is correct. 00371 if (Swapped) SrcInt.swap(DstInt); Whoops! At this point repSrcReg is not consistent with SrcInt and the same goes for repDstReg! 00372 li_->removeInterval(repSrcReg); 00373 r2rMap_[repSrcReg] = repDstReg; Does this code get us into trouble due to the inconsistency created above? Is this a bug? There's a lot of indirection going on here and it's hard to keep track of it. -Dave

...that the > register > 00370 // mapping (in the r2i map) is correct. > 00371 if (Swapped) SrcInt.swap(DstInt); > > Whoops! At this point repSrcReg is not consistent with SrcInt and the > same goes for repDstReg! > > 00372 li_->removeInterval(repSrcReg); > 00373 r2rMap_[repSrcReg] = repDstReg; > > Does this code get us into trouble due to the inconsistency created > above? > > Is this a bug? There's a lot of indirection going on here and it's > hard to > keep track of it. I am not sure. I will poke at it a bit. Thanks. Evan &gt...

On Jul 16, 2007, at 9:12 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Friday 13 July 2007 13:32, David A. Greene wrote: >> On Wednesday 11 July 2007 15:07, Christopher Lamb wrote: >>> Could it be possible for there to be a harness type interface that >>> would allow coalescers that support both modes to be hooked into the >>> pass registration, and those that depend on the

On Friday 13 July 2007 13:32, David A. Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 11 July 2007 15:07, Christopher Lamb wrote: > > Could it be possible for there to be a harness type interface that > > would allow coalescers that support both modes to be hooked into the > > pass registration, and those that depend on the allocator not be > > registered as passes? > > I have a