search for: reg16478

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "reg16478".

Did you mean: reg1647
2011 May 20
1
[LLVMdev] subregisters, def-kill
...reg16441, %reg16454, pred:20, pred:%CCReg; then, there is not an erroneous live-range that interferes, so it coalesces. I suppose this means that the first version with INSERT_SUBREG's is breaking the SSA-form? Or am I doing it wrong? In a similar case, the coalescer will not join the %reg16478 into %reg16511, although it makes perfect sense [after SimpleRegisterCoalescer]: 836L %reg16511:hi16<def> = COPY %reg16473:lo16<kill>, %reg16511<imp-def>; 844L %reg16511:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16478:lo16<kill>; 852L %r4<def,dead> = st_postMod %reg...
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
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