search for: selectiondagisel

...onally replace nodes directly instead of returning the desired replacement. So I'm working on fixing the undefined behaviour I described in llvm.org/PR26808. As part of this, we need to stop looking into deleted SDNodes to check if they were, in fact, deleted. A big place that we do this is in SelectionDAGISel::DoInstructionSelection, where we can find this helpful comment that came with the commit that added the check for DELETED_NODE: SelectionDAGISel.cpp says: > // FIXME: This is pretty gross. 'Select' should be changed to not return > // anything at all and this code should be nuked w...

...lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp:978 #9 0x00a111ac in llvm::SelectionDAG::Combine (this=0x1bea328, Level=llvm::NoIllegalOperations, AA=..., OptLevel=llvm::CodeGenOpt::Less) at /export/home/karel/vcs/llvm-head/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp:7732 #10 0x00acd9c0 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG (this=0x1be9f40) at /export/home/karel/vcs/llvm-head/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp:559 #11 0x00acc9a0 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock (this=0x1be9f40, Begin=..., End=..., HadTailCall=@0x7ee91158) at /export/home/karel/vcs/llvm-head/li...

I'm getting this: /home/ghost/Work/llvm-cvs/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp: In member function `void llvm::SelectionDAGLowering::visitSetCC(llvm::User&, llvm::ISD::CondCode, llvm::ISD::CondCode, llvm::ISD::CondCode)': /home/ghost/Work/llvm-cvs/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp:1107: error: ` UnsafeFPMath' undeclared (first use this fun...

...ectly instead of returning the desired replacement. > > So I'm working on fixing the undefined behaviour I described in > llvm.org/PR26808. As part of this, we need to stop looking into deleted > SDNodes to check if they were, in fact, deleted. A big place that we do > this is in SelectionDAGISel::DoInstructionSelection, where we can find > this helpful comment that came with the commit that added the check for > DELETED_NODE: > > SelectionDAGISel.cpp says: >> // FIXME: This is pretty gross. 'Select' should be changed to not return >> // anything at all and...

...0}) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:519 #11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG (this=0xbffff0e8) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:389 #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0, TypesNeedLegalizing=false, Fast=false) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:8648 #13 0x005ec313 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG (this=0x1608780) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:626 #14 0x005ee7e2 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock (this=0x1608780, LLVMBB=0x1603fa0, Begin={<bidirectional_iterator<llvm::Instruction,int>> = {<std::iterator<std::bid\ irectional_iterator_tag ,llvm::...

...urning the desired replacement. >> >> So I'm working on fixing the undefined behaviour I described in >> llvm.org/PR26808. As part of this, we need to stop looking into deleted >> SDNodes to check if they were, in fact, deleted. A big place that we do >> this is in SelectionDAGISel::DoInstructionSelection, where we can find >> this helpful comment that came with the commit that added the check for >> DELETED_NODE: >> >> SelectionDAGISel.cpp says: >>> // FIXME: This is pretty gross. 'Select' should be changed to not return >>>...

...LegalizeDAG (this=0x7fffffffd300) at /home/dmikushin/sandbox/src/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeDAG.cpp:227 #5 0x00007ffff6eb6092 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x697590) at /home/dmikushin/sandbox/src/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeDAG.cpp:3689 #6 0x00007ffff6fb3862 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG (this=0x697230) at /home/dmikushin/sandbox/src/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp:632 #7 0x00007ffff6fb2a84 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock (this=0x697230, Begin=..., End=..., HadTailCall=@0x7fffffffd880) at /home/dmikushin/sandbox/src/llvm/lib/Co...

...uleDAGRRList::Schedule (this=0x41a25a50) at /Volumes/Gir/devel/llvm/llvm.src/lib/CodeGen/ SelectionDAG/ScheduleDAGRRList.cpp:113 #10 0x007c2a6a in llvm::ScheduleDAG::Run (this=0x41a25a50) at / Volumes/Gir/devel/llvm/llvm.src/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ ScheduleDAG.cpp:834 #11 0x007f820e in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::ScheduleAndEmitDAG (this=0x42025600, DAG=@0xbfffe47c) at /Volumes/Gir/devel/llvm/ llvm.src/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp:4847 #12 0x0067fcca in (anonymous namespace)::X86DAGToDAGISel::InstructionSelectBasicBlock (this=0x42025600, DAG=@0xbfffe47c) at /Volumes/Gir/devel/llvm/...

Using GCC 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-11) I've had this problem with the ALWAYS_INLINE directive in SelectionDAGISel.cpp: /arm/scratch/egrimley/llvm.svn/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp: In function `bool CheckChildType(const unsigned char*, unsigned int&, llvm::SDValue, const llvm::TargetLowering&, unsigned int)': /arm/scratch/egrimley/llvm.svn/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel....

...; #11 0x005485a5 in (anonymous > namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG (this=0xbffff0e8) at > LegalizeDAG.cpp:389 > #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0, > TypesNeedLegalizing=false, Fast=false) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:8648 > #13 0x005ec313 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG > (this=0x1608780) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:626 > #14 0x005ee7e2 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock > (this=0x1608780, LLVMBB=0x1603fa0, > Begin={<bidirectional_iterator<llvm::Instruction,int>> = > {<std::iterator<std::bid\ > ir...

Hi Ankur, > The flags "-view-sched-dags".. described in the doc doesn't seem to work. ( > "llc -help" doesn't list it ). as far as I remember, displaying DAGs during compilation is only enabled in "debug builds" [1] of LLVM. You probably have to re-configure and re-compile LLVM to enable this feature. Best regards, Christoph [1]

...385 5 libLLVM-3.2svn.so 0x00007f395f1305d9 llvm::report_fatal_error(llvm::Twine const&) + 0 6 libLLVM-3.2svn.so 0x00007f395efdb4d2 7 libLLVM-3.2svn.so 0x00007f395efdfc3b 8 libLLVM-3.2svn.so 0x00007f395efdfd2d llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize() + 49 9 libLLVM-3.2svn.so 0x00007f395f0d0d76 llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG() + 2532 10 libLLVM-3.2svn.so 0x00007f395f0d2ae6 llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock(llvm::ilist_iterator<llvm::Instruction const>, llvm::ilist_iterator<llvm::Instruction const>, bool&) + 228 11 libLLVM-3.2svn.so 0x00007f395f0d3524 llvm::SelectionDAGISel::Sel...

The diff is not only the && and || but also the leading !: diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp index 58f029fbe9fc..7ee06fc153b2 100644 --- a/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp +++ b/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp @@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ void SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG() { (void)BlockNumber; bool MatchFil...

...AGCombiner.cpp:978 > #9  0x00a111ac in llvm::SelectionDAG::Combine (this=0x1bea328, > Level=llvm::NoIllegalOperations, >     AA=..., OptLevel=llvm::CodeGenOpt::Less) >     at > /export/home/karel/vcs/llvm-head/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp:7732 > #10 0x00acd9c0 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG (this=0x1be9f40) >     at > /export/home/karel/vcs/llvm-head/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp:559 > #11 0x00acc9a0 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock > (this=0x1be9f40, Begin=..., End=..., >     HadTailCall=@0x7ee91158) >     at > /expor...

Hello. I expand an instruction to a sequence of MachineSDNodes at instruction selection, in the Select() method of the SelectionDAGISel class. For efficiency, in order to generate fewer instructions, I would like to assign twice to the same physical register - but since I don't want to "mess" with the register allocator, I am using only virtual registers. However, if I write in my C++ code 2 getCopyToReg()...

...eplacement. >>> >>> So I'm working on fixing the undefined behaviour I described in >>> llvm.org/PR26808. As part of this, we need to stop looking into deleted >>> SDNodes to check if they were, in fact, deleted. A big place that we do >>> this is in SelectionDAGISel::DoInstructionSelection, where we can find >>> this helpful comment that came with the commit that added the check for >>> DELETED_NODE: >>> >>> SelectionDAGISel.cpp says: >>>> // FIXME: This is pretty gross. 'Select' should be changed to not...

Hi, I have two questions about the above method of the SelectionDAGISel class. 1. The overrides in PPCDAGToDAGISel and in I64DAGToDAGISel are identical (except for PPCISD::FIRST_NUMBER vs. IA64ISD::FIRST_NUMBER). Maybe, this means that it would be better if SelectionDAGISel had default implementation? That would remove this code duplication. If desired, SelectionDAG...

I am trying to understand the SelectionDAG construction from LLVM IR. I have gone through the doc "The LLVM Target-Independent Code Generator" on LLVM site. This gives a great initial overview. However I am unable to catch the actual control flow for the llvm->selectionDag conversion. The flags "-view-sched-dags".. described in the doc doesn't seem to work. ( "llc

...newValue); return; or: SelectCode(N); return; Perhaps? MartinO From: Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:martin.oriordan at movidius.com] Sent: 28 June 2016 16:49 To: 'LLVM Developers' <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Question about changes to 'SelectionDAGISel.h' Although I would like to track the LLVM head revisions regularly, unfortunately I only get the opportunity every couple of months or even every 6 month with a full release. This time I am updating from revision #262824 (8th March) so more than 3 months have elapsed. For the most par...

...0x005485a5 in (anonymous namespace)::SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeDAG >> (this=0xbffff0e8) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:389 >> #12 0x00548734 in llvm::SelectionDAG::Legalize (this=0x16088a0, >> TypesNeedLegalizing=false, Fast=false) at LegalizeDAG.cpp:8648 >> #13 0x005ec313 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG >> (this=0x1608780) at SelectionDAGISel.cpp:626 >> #14 0x005ee7e2 in llvm::SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock >> (this=0x1608780, LLVMBB=0x1603fa0, >> Begin={<bidirectional_iterator<llvm::Instruction,int>> = >> {<std::iterator<std::...