Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "reg16445".
Did you mean:
reg1645
2011 May 09
2
[LLVMdev] wide memory accesses
...ed two techniques, in the MachineFunction:
1. replace the MachineOperands in the users of the data with the new register/subregister index. This yields an assert failure during VirtRegRewriter, in substPhysReg: "Invalid SubReg for physical register", after the Two-address rewrote this:
%reg16445<def> = add %reg16507:hi16, %reg16510:hi16 ; 32bit:16507,16510, 16bit: 16445
prepend: %reg16445<def> = COPY %reg16507;
rewrite to: %reg16445<def> = addh_1_8 %reg16445:hi16, %reg16510:hi16
In my eyes, there should not have been a subreg 'hi16' for the 16445 reg...
2011 May 09
0
[LLVMdev] wide memory accesses
...n the MachineFunction:
>
> 1. replace the MachineOperands in the users of the data with the new register/subregister index. This yields an assert failure during VirtRegRewriter, in substPhysReg: "Invalid SubReg for physical register", after the Two-address rewrote this:
>
> %reg16445<def> = add %reg16507:hi16, %reg16510:hi16 ; 32bit:16507,16510, 16bit: 16445
> prepend: %reg16445<def> = COPY %reg16507;
> rewrite to: %reg16445<def> = addh_1_8 %reg16445:hi16, %reg16510:hi16
>
> In my eyes, there should not have been a subreg 'hi16...
2011 May 19
3
[LLVMdev] subregisters, def-kill
Hi,
I am combining 16-bit registers to a 32 bit register in order to make a wide store, as per below:
732 %reg16506:hi16<def,dead> = COPY %reg16445<kill>;
740 %reg16506:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16468<kill>;
748 %r3<def,dead> = store %reg16506<kill>, %r3,
As you can see, LiveVariables has marked the high part dead, even though the super-register is used at SlotIndex 748. Why is this? Should I add anything special to...
2011 May 19
0
[LLVMdev] subregisters, def-kill
On May 19, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am combining 16-bit registers to a 32 bit register in order to make a wide store, as per below:
>
> 732 %reg16506:hi16<def,dead> = COPY %reg16445<kill>;
> 740 %reg16506:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16468<kill>;
> 748 %r3<def,dead> = store %reg16506<kill>, %r3,
>
> As you can see, LiveVariables has marked the high part dead, even though the super-register is used at SlotIndex 748. Why is this? Should I add...
2011 May 20
1
[LLVMdev] subregisters, def-kill
If I write
%reg16506<def> = INSERT_SUBREG %reg16506, %reg16445, hi16; #1
%reg16506<def> = INSERT_SUBREG %reg16506, %reg16468, lo16; #2
store %reg16506 #3
it will not coalesce, as
LiveVariables:
on
#2: %16506 gets #2 as a kill
#3: %16506 gets #3 as an additional...
2011 May 20
1
[LLVMdev] subregisters, def-kill
...: jnspaulsson at hotmail.com
>
>
> On May 19, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am combining 16-bit registers to a 32 bit register in order to make a wide store, as per below:
> >
> > 732 %reg16506:hi16<def,dead> = COPY %reg16445<kill>;
> > 740 %reg16506:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16468<kill>;
> > 748 %r3<def,dead> = store %reg16506<kill>, %r3,
> >
> > As you can see, LiveVariables has marked the high part dead, even though the super-register is used at SlotIndex 748. Why i...
2011 May 20
1
[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 83, Issue 33
...text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
>
> On May 19, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am combining 16-bit registers to a 32 bit register in order to make a
> wide store, as per below:
> >
> > 732 %reg16506:hi16<def,dead> = COPY %reg16445<kill>;
> > 740 %reg16506:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16468<kill>;
> > 748 %r3<def,dead> = store %reg16506<kill>, %r3,
> >
> > As you can see, LiveVariables has marked the high part dead, even though
> the super-register is used at SlotIndex 748. Why...