Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "reg1253".
2009 Feb 02
0
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
...ed copy]
2708 %reg1178<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1647<kill> ; srcLine 0 *** u
before d
2712 TEST64rr %reg1173, %reg1173, %EFLAGS<imp-def> ; srcLine 30
2716 JLE mbb<file test.f90, bb90,0x3c37ed0>, %EFLAGS<imp-use,kill> ;
srcLine
0
bb108:
[...]
4352 %reg1253<def> = MAXSSrr %reg1253, %reg1588<kill> ; srcLine 60
4356 %reg1645<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1253<kill> ; srcLine 0
4360 %reg1177<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1176<kill> ; srcLine 0 ***
updated
4364 %reg1647<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1243&l...
2009 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
On Jan 30, 2009, at 1:52 PM, David Greene wrote:
> On Friday 30 January 2009 15:10, David Greene wrote:
>
>> This still looks correct. The coalescer then says:
>>
>> 4360 %reg1177<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1176<kill> ; srcLine 0
>> Inspecting %reg1176,0 = [2702,4362:0) 0 at 2702-(4362) and
>> %reg1177,0 =
>>
2009 Jan 30
0
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
On Jan 29, 2009, at 5:29 PM, David Greene wrote:
> On Thursday 29 January 2009 18:04, Eli Friedman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote:
>>> After phi elimination we have:
>>>
>>> bb134:
>>> %reg1645 = 1.0
>>>
>>> bb74:
>>> %reg1176 = MOVAPS %reg1645
>>> %reg1177 =
2009 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
On Thursday 29 January 2009 18:04, Eli Friedman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote:
> > After phi elimination we have:
> >
> > bb134:
> > %reg1645 = 1.0
> >
> > bb74:
> > %reg1176 = MOVAPS %reg1645
> > %reg1177 = MOVAPS %reg1646
> > [...]
> >
> > bb108:
> > %reg1645 =
2009 Feb 02
2
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
...7<kill> ; srcLine
> 0 *** u
> before d
> 2712 TEST64rr %reg1173, %reg1173, %EFLAGS<imp-def> ; srcLine 30
> 2716 JLE mbb<file test.f90, bb90,0x3c37ed0>, %EFLAGS<imp-
> use,kill> ;
> srcLine
> 0
>
> bb108:
> [...]
> 4352 %reg1253<def> = MAXSSrr %reg1253, %reg1588<kill> ;
> srcLine 60
> 4356 %reg1645<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1253<kill> ; srcLine 0
> 4360 %reg1177<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1176<kill> ; srcLine
> 0 ***
> updated
> 4364 %reg1647&...
2009 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
...; srcLine 0 *** u before d
2708 %reg1178<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1647<kill> ; srcLine 0 *** u before d
2712 TEST64rr %reg1173, %reg1173, %EFLAGS<imp-def> ; srcLine 30
2716 JLE mbb<file test.f90, bb90,0x3c37ed0>, %EFLAGS<imp-use,kill> ; srcLine 0
bb108:
[...]
4352 %reg1253<def> = MAXSSrr %reg1253, %reg1588<kill> ; srcLine 60
4356 %reg1645<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1253<kill> ; srcLine 0
4360 %reg1646<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1176<kill> ; srcLine 0
4364 %reg1647<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1243<kill> ; srcLine 0
4368 JMP mbb<f...
2009 Jan 29
2
[LLVMdev] undefs in phis
...s going on in my phi example.
Coming into DAGtoDAG we have this code:
bb74:
x = phi(1.0:bb134, %r1450:bb108)
y = phi(undef:bb134, x:bb108)
[...]
bb108:
%r1450 = <expr>
After DAGtoDAG we have:
bb134:
%reg1459 = IMPLICIT_DEF
%reg1458 = 1.0
bb74:
%reg1176 = phi(%reg1458:bb134, %reg1253:bb108)
%reg1177 = phi(%reg1459:bb134, %reg1176:bb108)
[...]
bb108:
%reg1253 = <expr>
So far so good, though the IMPLICIT_DEF is worrisome. I'm guessing that's
what causes problems later.
After phi elimination we have:
bb134:
%reg1645 = 1.0
bb74:
%reg1176 = MOVAPS %reg16...