Displaying 20 results from an estimated 22 matches for "reg16385".
Did you mean:
reg16384
2010 Sep 29
2
[LLVMdev] comparison pattern trouble
...xt i8 %data to i32
%1 = zext i16 %crc to i32
%2 = xor i32 %1, %0
%3 = and i32 %2, 1
%4 = icmp eq i32 %3, 0
which compares the lowest bits of the 2 variables
ends up being compiled as
%reg16384<def> = LDWi <fi#-2>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-2] I32Regs:%reg16384
%reg16385<def> = LDWi <fi#-1>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-1] I32Regs:%reg16385
%reg16386<def> = COPY %reg16384; I32Regs:%reg16386,16384
%reg16390<def> = NErrb %reg16384, %reg16385; I1Regs:%reg16390 I32Regs:%reg16384,16385
which just compares ALL BITS of the variables.
A...
2010 Nov 08
2
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Register Allocation and copy instructions
...definition cannot be mapped to machine code.
For instance I come across (1) and I reduce it to (2). However a copy
instruction cannot move from EDX to CX. What mechanics in LLVM will tell me
that I cannot make this move during register allocation, or how can I tell
from (1) that I cannot execute %reg16385<def> = COPY %reg16390. Furthermore,
how should I handle this case.
1:
# Machine code for function test5:
Frame Objects:
fi#-2: size=2, align=4, fixed, at location [SP+8]
fi#-1: size=2, align=8, fixed, at location [SP+4]
Function Live Outs: %AX
BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
%...
2011 Jan 29
1
[LLVMdev] The type or size of virtual registers in machineinstr
Hi,
I want to know what is the type or size of a virtual register in a
Machineinstr::MachineOperand (If this MachineOperand is a register). For
example, what is the size of reg16385 in the following MachineInstr. I know
now in the llvm bitcode, the type of a Instruction could be obtained from
the Value::GetType(), but what is the counterpart in MachineInstr (not
derived from class Value)?
%reg16385<def> = MOV32rm <fi#0>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0; mem:LD4[%x_addr]
GR32:...
2010 Sep 29
1
[LLVMdev] comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?
...r i32 %1, %0
> %3 = and i32 %2, 1
> %4 = icmp eq i32 %3, 0
>
>
> which compares the lowest bits of the 2 variables
>
>
> ends up being compiled as
>
>
> %reg16384<def> = LDWi <fi#-2>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-2] I32Regs:%reg16384
> %reg16385<def> = LDWi <fi#-1>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-1] I32Regs:%reg16385
> %reg16386<def> = COPY %reg16384; I32Regs:%reg16386,16384
> %reg16390<def> = NErrb %reg16384, %reg16385; I1Regs:%reg16390 I32Regs:%reg16384,16385
>
>
> which just compares ALL BIT...
2010 Dec 15
2
[LLVMdev] Optimization passes break machine instructions on new backend
...on Live Ins: %R0 in reg%16384, %R1 in reg%16385, %R2 in reg%16386, %R3
in reg%16387
Function Live Outs: %R0
BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
Live Ins: %R0 %R1 %R2 %R3
%reg16387<def> = COPY %R3; IntRegs:%reg16387
%reg16386<def> = COPY %R2; IntRegs:%reg16386
%reg16385<def> = COPY %R1; IntRegs:%reg16385
%reg16384<def> = COPY %R0; IntRegs:%reg16384
%reg16390<def> = MOVE %reg16386; IntRegs:%reg16390,16386
%reg16388<def> = CMPrr %reg16384, %reg16385, %CFR<imp-def,dead>;
IntRegs:%reg16388,16384,16385
SKIPC...
2010 Nov 08
0
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Register Allocation and copy instructions
...cannot be mapped to machine code.
>
> For instance I come across (1) and I reduce it to (2). However a copy instruction cannot move from EDX to CX. What mechanics in LLVM will tell me that I cannot make this move during register allocation, or how can I tell from (1) that I cannot execute %reg16385<def> = COPY %reg16390. Furthermore, how should I handle this case.
> BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
> %reg16390<def> = MOVZX32rm16 <fi#-2>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0; mem:LD2[FixedStack-2] GR32:%reg16390
> %reg16385<def> = COPY %reg16390:sub_16bit<ki...
2010 Oct 29
1
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Register Allocation and Kill Flags
...e kill flag?
This code below is just an example from test\CodeGen\X86\xor.ll
# Machine code for function test3:
Frame Objects:
fi#-2: size=4, align=4, fixed, at location [SP+8]
fi#-1: size=4, align=8, fixed, at location [SP+4]
Function Live Outs: %EAX
BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
%reg16385<def> = MOV32rm <fi#-2>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0;
mem:LD4[FixedStack-2] GR32:%reg16385
%reg16384<def> = MOV32rm <fi#-1>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0;
mem:LD4[FixedStack-1] GR32:%reg16384
%reg16388<def> = MOV32ri 1; GR32:%reg16388
%reg16392<def> = XOR32ri %r...
2010 Nov 27
3
[LLVMdev] Register Pairing
...the next
operation, in this case we're returning the result. This gives me this code
before instr sel:
# Machine code for function foo:
Function Live Ins: %R25R24 in reg%16384, %R23R22 in reg%16385
Function Live Outs: %R25R24
BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry
Live Ins: %R25R24 %R23R22
%reg16385<def> = COPY %R23R22; WDREGS:%reg16385 // COPY B
%reg16384<def> = COPY %R25R24; WDREGS:%reg16384 // COPY A
%reg16387<def> = COPY %reg16384:ssub_0; GPR8:%reg16387 WDREGS:%reg16384
// EXTRACT LO BYTE OF A
%reg16388<def> = COPY %reg16385:ssub_0; GPR8:%reg16388 WDRE...
2010 Sep 29
0
[LLVMdev] comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?
...2 %1, %0
>> %3 = and i32 %2, 1
>> %4 = icmp eq i32 %3, 0
>>
>> which compares the lowest bits of the 2 variables
>> ends up being compiled as
>>
>> %reg16384<def> = LDWi <fi#-2>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-2] I32Regs:%reg16384
>> %reg16385<def> = LDWi <fi#-1>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-1] I32Regs:%reg16385
>> %reg16386<def> = COPY %reg16384; I32Regs:%reg16386,16384
>> %reg16390<def> = NErrb %reg16384, %reg16385; I1Regs:%reg16390 I32Regs:%reg16384,16385
>>
>> which just compares...
2010 Sep 30
4
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
...i32 %2, 1
>>> %4 = icmp eq i32 %3, 0
>>>
>>> which compares the lowest bits of the 2 variables
>>> ends up being compiled as
>>>
>>> %reg16384<def> = LDWi <fi#-2>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-2] I32Regs:%reg16384
>>> %reg16385<def> = LDWi <fi#-1>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-1] I32Regs:%reg16385
>>> %reg16386<def> = COPY %reg16384; I32Regs:%reg16386,16384
>>> %reg16390<def> = NErrb %reg16384, %reg16385; I1Regs:%reg16390 I32Regs:%reg16384,16385
>>>
>>> whic...
2010 Oct 01
2
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
...0
>>>>>
>>>>> which compares the lowest bits of the 2 variables
>>>>> ends up being compiled as
>>>>>
>>>>> %reg16384<def> = LDWi <fi#-2>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-2] I32Regs:%reg16384
>>>>> %reg16385<def> = LDWi <fi#-1>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-1] I32Regs:%reg16385
>>>>> %reg16386<def> = COPY %reg16384; I32Regs:%reg16386,16384
>>>>> %reg16390<def> = NErrb %reg16384, %reg16385; I1Regs:%reg16390 I32Regs:%reg16384,16385
>>>>>...
2010 Oct 01
0
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
...%4 = icmp eq i32 %3, 0
>>>>
>>>> which compares the lowest bits of the 2 variables
>>>> ends up being compiled as
>>>>
>>>> %reg16384<def> = LDWi <fi#-2>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-2] I32Regs:%reg16384
>>>> %reg16385<def> = LDWi <fi#-1>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-1] I32Regs:%reg16385
>>>> %reg16386<def> = COPY %reg16384; I32Regs:%reg16386,16384
>>>> %reg16390<def> = NErrb %reg16384, %reg16385; I1Regs:%reg16390 I32Regs:%reg16384,16385
>>>>
>&g...
2010 Oct 04
2
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG
...>>>>>
>>>>> which compares the lowest bits of the 2 variables
>>>>> ends up being compiled as
>>>>>
>>>>> %reg16384<def> = LDWi <fi#-2>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-2] I32Regs:%reg16384
>>>>> %reg16385<def> = LDWi <fi#-1>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-1] I32Regs:%reg16385
>>>>> %reg16386<def> = COPY %reg16384; I32Regs:%reg16386,16384
>>>>> %reg16390<def> = NErrb %reg16384, %reg16385; I1Regs:%reg16390 I32Regs:%reg16384,16385
>>>>...
2011 Jun 14
0
[LLVMdev] Too many load/store in Machine code represtation
There are a lot of load/store instructions for accessing variable in stack
slot. The following message is use "llc -march=ppc32" command and dump from
MachineFunction.
%reg16384<def> = LWZ 0, <fi#6>; mem:LD4[%b] GPRC:%reg16384
%reg16385<def> = LWZ 0, <fi#5>; mem:LD4[%c] GPRC:%reg16385
%reg16386<def> = ADD4 %reg16384<kill>, %reg16385<kill>;
GPRC:%reg16386,16384,16385
STW %reg16386<kill>, 0, <fi#7>; mem:ST4[%a] GPRC:%reg16386
I am interesting in this method because it seems...
2010 Oct 04
0
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG
...;
>>>>>> which compares the lowest bits of the 2 variables
>>>>>> ends up being compiled as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> %reg16384<def> = LDWi <fi#-2>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-2] I32Regs:%reg16384
>>>>>> %reg16385<def> = LDWi <fi#-1>, 0; mem:LD4[FixedStack-1] I32Regs:%reg16385
>>>>>> %reg16386<def> = COPY %reg16384; I32Regs:%reg16386,16384
>>>>>> %reg16390<def> = NErrb %reg16384, %reg16385; I1Regs:%reg16390 I32Regs:%reg16384,16385
>>&g...
2010 Nov 24
1
[LLVMdev] Selecting BRCOND instead of BRCC
...i16,ch = CopyFromReg 0x16d5748, 0x170de60 [ID=12]
0x16d5748: ch = EntryToken [ORD=1] [ID=0]
0x170de60: i16 = Register %reg16388 [ID=2]
0x170e760: ch = CopyToReg 0x16d5748, 0x170e660, 0x170e160 [ID=16]
0x16d5748: ch = EntryToken [ORD=1] [ID=0]
0x170e660: i16 = Register %reg16385 [ID=6]
0x170e160: i16,ch = CopyFromReg 0x16d5748, 0x170e060 [ID=13]
0x16d5748: ch = EntryToken [ORD=1] [ID=0]
0x170e060: i16 = Register %reg16389 [ID=3]
0x170e960: ch = CopyToReg 0x16d5748, 0x170e860, 0x170e360 [ID=17]
0x16d5748: ch = EntryToken [ORD=1] [ID=0]
0x1...
2010 Oct 02
1
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
...> 0x2384d70: i32 = Register %reg16384 [ID=6]
>>
>> 0x2384270:<multiple use>
>> 0x2384e70: ch = CopyToReg 0x2536968, 0x2384d70, 0x2384270 [ID=17]
>>
>> 0x2536968:<multiple use>
>> 0x2385070: i32 = Register %reg16385 [ID=7]
>>
>> 0x2384970:<multiple use>
>> 0x24b33f0: ch = CopyToReg 0x2536968, 0x2385070, 0x2384970 [ID=14]
>>
>> 0x2536968:<multiple use>
>> 0x24b35f0: i32 = Register %reg16386 [ID=8]
>>
>> 0x2384...
2010 Dec 15
0
[LLVMdev] Optimization passes break machine instructions on new backend
Hello Per,
> The CMPrr instruction is moved down to after the PHI node. My guess is that
> the 'dead' in CFR<imp-def,dead> is to blame, but I can't see what I'm doing
> differently from MSP430/sparc that makes this not work. Any help GREATLY
> appreciated!
It seems like no use of CFR after CMP, indeed. How condbranches on
your platform look like (patterns, etc.)
2010 Dec 15
2
[LLVMdev] Optimization passes break machine instructions on new backend
But in the first version it's used on the next row:
%reg16388<def> = CMPrr %reg16384, %reg16385, %CFR<imp-def,dead>;
IntRegs:%reg16388,16384,16385
SKIPCOND 1, *%CFR<imp-use>*
Or doesn't that count?
Following are patters for cmp and skipcond:
def cmpcc : SDNode<"CSISD::CMP", SDTIntBinOp, [SDNPOutFlag]>;
let Defs = [CFR] in {
def CMPrr : InstCS<(out...
2010 Sep 05
2
[LLVMdev] Possible missed optimization?
...; <i64> [#uses=1]
ret i64 %xor2
}
produces these instructions before coalescing:
4L %reg16387<def> = COPY %R3<kill>
12L %reg16386<def> = COPY %R2<kill>
28L %reg16384<def> = COPY %R0<kill>
36L %reg16388<def> = COPY %reg16385<kill>
44L %reg16388<def>, %CPSR<def,dead> = tEOR %reg16388, %reg16387<kill>, pred:14, pred:%reg0
56L %reg16389<def> = COPY %reg16384<kill>
64L %reg16389<def>, %CPSR<def,dead> = tEOR %reg16389, %reg16386<kill>, pred:14, pred:%reg0
76L...