search for: sdoperand

...Attached is the assembly. It is the smallest example generated that causes the segfault. If this EE uses a recursive function (??), it seems an inherent limitation in how big llvm functions can be. Simon. gdb backtrace: #0 0x40b126a3 in (anonymous namespace)::X86DAGToDAGISel::Select_store(llvm::SDOperand&, llvm::SDOperand) (this=0x822d660, Result=@0xbf800a10, N={Val = 0x8254338, ResNo = 0}) at X86GenDAGISel.inc:19768 #1 0x40b01b44 in (anonymous namespace)::X86DAGToDAGISel::SelectCode(llvm::SDOperand&, llvm::SDOperand) (this=0x822d660, Result=@0xbf800a10, N={Val = 0x8254338, ResNo...

Hello, I did a little experiment modifying LLVM to be able to use alias-analysis information in scheduling so that independent memory operations may be reordered. Attached is a patch which implements this. I copied some routines from DAGCombiner.cpp for using SDOperands with alias queries; it should probably be factored out somewhere so the code can be shared. I reorganized SelectionDAGLowering::getLoadFrom a little, to make it simpler to use in other contexts. Also, the patch fixes a bug where SelectionDAG::getLoad and SelectionDAG::getStore were being called w...

...t; Index: include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h > =================================================================== > --- include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h (revision 42247) > +++ include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h (working copy) > @@ -851,8 +851,18 @@ > virtual std::pair<SDOperand, SDOperand> > LowerCallTo(SDOperand Chain, const Type *RetTy, bool > RetTyIsSigned, > bool isVarArg, unsigned CallingConv, bool isTailCall, > - SDOperand Callee, ArgListTy &Args, SelectionDAG &DAG); > + bool isNextInstRet, SD...

...s map a CALL instruction directly onto an SDNode that takes an equal number of arguments (very much alike intrinsics, except that these are custom to my target.) I do not need to implement any call sequences, stack frames etc. I get the following assertion failure: llc: LegalizeDAG.cpp:834: llvm::SDOperand <unnamed>::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp(llvm::SDOperand): Assertion `Tmp3.Val->getNumValues() == Result.Val->getNumValues() && "Lowering call/formal_arguments produced unexpected # results!"' failed. This is what my LowerCALL looks like: SDOperand MCTargetLow...

...Attached is the assembly. It is the smallest example generated that causes the segfault. If this EE uses a recursive function (??), it seems an inherent limitation in how big llvm functions can be. Simon. gdb backtrace: #0 0x40b126a3 in (anonymous namespace)::X86DAGToDAGISel::Select_store(llvm::SDOperand&, llvm::SDOperand) (this=0x822d660, Result=@0xbf800a10, N={Val = 0x8254338, ResNo = 0}) at X86GenDAGISel.inc:19768 #1 0x40b01b44 in (anonymous namespace)::X86DAGToDAGISel::SelectCode(llvm::SDOperand&, llvm::SDOperand) (this=0x822d660, Result=@0xbf800a10, N={Val = 0x8254338, ResNo...

...= DAG.getMachineFunction().getInfo<PPCFunctionInfo>(); + unsigned CallerMinReservedArea = FI->getMinReservedArea(); + SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; Just change last statement to int SPDiff = (int)... +bool +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, + SDOperand Ret, + SelectionDAG& DAG) const { + // Variable argument functions + // are not supported. Why two separate lines? + if (!PerformTailCallOpt || + cast<Constan...

...apple.com> wrote: > More nitpicks: > ... > No need for else here. :-) Done > SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; > > Just change last statement to > int SPDiff = (int)... Done > > +bool > +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, > + SDOperand Ret, > + SelectionDAG& > DAG) const { > + // Variable argument functions > + // are not supported. > > Why two separate lines? there once was...

...lvm/Target/TargetLowering.h >> =================================================================== >> --- include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h (revision 42247) >> +++ include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h (working copy) >> @@ -851,8 +851,18 @@ >> virtual std::pair<SDOperand, SDOperand> >> LowerCallTo(SDOperand Chain, const Type *RetTy, bool >> RetTyIsSigned, >> bool isVarArg, unsigned CallingConv, bool isTailCall, >> - SDOperand Callee, ArgListTy &Args, SelectionDAG &DAG); >> + bool i...

...chain operands during the construction of the DAG, while the DAGCombiner code works by cleaning up chain operands in a separate pass. It looks like the end result is pretty similar. > > Attached is a patch which implements this. I copied some routines from > > DAGCombiner.cpp for using SDOperands with alias queries; it should > > probably be factored out somewhere so the code can be shared. I > > reorganized SelectionDAGLowering::getLoadFrom a little, to make it > > simpler to use in other contexts. > > > > Also, the patch fixes a bug where SelectionDAG::getLo...

...>> =================================================================== > >> --- include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h (revision 42247) > >> +++ include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h (working copy) > >> @@ -851,8 +851,18 @@ > >> virtual std::pair<SDOperand, SDOperand> > >> LowerCallTo(SDOperand Chain, const Type *RetTy, bool > >> RetTyIsSigned, > >> bool isVarArg, unsigned CallingConv, bool isTailCall, > >> - SDOperand Callee, ArgListTy &Args, SelectionDAG &DAG); > >&...

Hello Dale, this is an updated version of the tail call optimization patch for powerpc. could you have a look at it? i added code to support ppc64 (untested, will try to get access to ppc64 on a friend's machine). incorporated evan's formatting suggestions. ;) will run another round of testing (llvm-test) on my powerpc g4/800 when i get the okay to commit. testing on this machine takes

...e > that > takes an equal number of arguments (very much alike intrinsics, except > that these are custom to my target.) I do not need to implement any > call > sequences, stack frames etc. > > I get the following assertion failure: > > llc: LegalizeDAG.cpp:834: llvm::SDOperand > <unnamed>::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp(llvm::SDOperand): > Assertion `Tmp3.Val->getNumValues() == Result.Val->getNumValues() > && "Lowering call/formal_arguments produced unexpected # results!"' > failed. > > This is what my LowerCA...

...llustrate with an example? Index: include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h =================================================================== --- include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h (revision 42247) +++ include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h (working copy) @@ -851,8 +851,18 @@ virtual std::pair<SDOperand, SDOperand> LowerCallTo(SDOperand Chain, const Type *RetTy, bool RetTyIsSigned, bool isVarArg, unsigned CallingConv, bool isTailCall, - SDOperand Callee, ArgListTy &Args, SelectionDAG &DAG); + bool isNextInstRet, SDOperand Callee, ArgListTy &...

...; generated that causes the segfault. > > If this EE uses a recursive function (??), it seems an inherent > limitation > in how big llvm functions can be. > > Simon. > > gdb backtrace: > #0 0x40b126a3 in (anonymous > namespace)::X86DAGToDAGISel::Select_store(llvm::SDOperand&, > llvm::SDOperand) (this=0x822d660, > Result=@0xbf800a10, N={Val = 0x8254338, ResNo = 0}) at > X86GenDAGISel.inc:19768 > #1 0x40b01b44 in (anonymous namespace)::X86DAGToDAGISel::SelectCode > (llvm::SDOperand&, llvm::SDOperand) (this=0x822d660, > Result=@0xb...

The patch is against revision 42247. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tailcall-src.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 62639 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070923/4770302f/attachment.obj>

...would like to contribute to the project). Also, I'm using MS Visual C++ Express, and there are a few things that stop llvm1.9 (and the current CVS release) from compiling correctly - once again, not sure how to submit, but here are the main things - In SelectionDAGNodes.h StoreSDNode(SDOperand Chain, SDOperand Value, SDOperand Ptr, SDOperand Off, ISD::MemOpAddrMode AM, bool isTrunc, MVT::ValueType SVT, const Value *SV, int O=0, unsigned Align=0, bool Vol=false) SDOperand Value should really be SDOperand value (lower case), since Value is already a defined cla...

...dded the following code to my target to do the expansion: ExpandADDSUB(SDNode *N, SelectionDAG &DAG) { assert(N->getValueType(0) == MVT::i64 && (N->getOpcode() == ISD::ADD || N->getOpcode() == ISD::SUB) && "Unknown operand to lower!"); // Extract components SDOperand LHSL = DAG.getNode(ISD::EXTRACT_ELEMENT, MVT::i32, N->getOperand(0), DAG.getConstant(0, MVT::i32)); SDOperand LHSH = DAG.getNode(ISD::EXTRACT_ELEMENT, MVT::i32, N->getOperand(0), DAG.getConstant(1, MVT::i32)); SDOperand RHSL = DAG.getNode(ISD::EXTRACT_ELEMENT, MVT::i32, N->getOperand(1)...

...TAILCALL, /// TC_RETURN - A tail call return. @@ -325,10 +326,6 @@ SelectionDAG &DAG) const; private: - /// PPCAtomicLabelIndex - Keep track the number of PPC atomic labels. - /// - unsigned PPCAtomicLabelIndex; - SDOperand getFramePointerFrameIndex(SelectionDAG & DAG) const; SDOperand getReturnAddrFrameIndex(SelectionDAG & DAG) const; Index: lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCInstr64Bit.td =================================================================== --- lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCInstr64Bit.td (revision 52957) ++...

...: >> ... >> No need for else here. :-) > Done >> SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; >> >> Just change last statement to >> int SPDiff = (int)... > Done >> >> +bool >> +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, >> + SDOperand Ret, >> + SelectionDAG& >> DAG) const { >> + // Variable argument functions >> + // are not supported. >> >> Why two separate...

...: TargetLowering(TM) { + IsLastCallTailCall = false; This is probably not a good idea. You are assuming nodes are lowered in certain order, that is dangerous. It's probably better to check whether the last call is a tail call on the fly as you are processing the return node. 8. - - SDOperand Chain = Op.getOperand(0); - SDOperand Flag; - - // Copy the result values into the output registers. - if (RVLocs.size() != 1 || !RVLocs[0].isRegLoc() || - RVLocs[0].getLocReg() != X86::ST0) { - for (unsigned i = 0; i != RVLocs.size(); ++i) { - CCValAssign &VA = RVLocs[i]; -...