Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1870 matches for "selectiondags".
Did you mean:
selectiondag
2008 Jun 11
0
[LLVMdev] some warning from VS2005 (requested by gabor)
Hi,
Some random sample of VS warning:
Lot of 64 bits conversions:
AsmPrinter.cpp
..\..\lib\CodeGen\AsmPrinter.cpp(277) : warning C4244: 'initializing' :
conversion from 'uint64_t' to 'unsigned int', possible loss of data
..\..\lib\CodeGen\AsmPrinter.cpp(614) : warning C4244: 'argument' :
conversion from 'uint64_t' to 'int', possible loss of data
2011 Jun 24
2
[LLVMdev] Infinite loop in llc on ARMv7 (LLVM HEAD from June 17)
Hello,
it looks like I do have infinite loop in llc on linux/armv7 platform
somewhere in llvm::SmallVectorImpl. Two backtraces obtained with 10
seconds delay are:
0x0099be14 in llvm::SmallVectorTemplateCommon<llvm::SDNode*>::setEnd
(this=0x7ee90b38, P=0x5c06988)
at /export/home/karel/vcs/llvm-head/include/llvm/ADT/SmallVector.h:103
103 void setEnd(T *P) { this->EndX = P; }
2016 May 19
7
Transferring SelectionDAG code ownership
As I’m sure many of you have noticed, I no longer have the time to be a proper code owner for SelectionDAG. In the interest of the project and to keep development running smoothly, I am resigning my code ownership. Justin Bogner has graciously volunteered to take it up. He has a strong history of LLVM contributions, a demonstrated commitment to good community development practices, and has
2015 Nov 17
3
Mips unconditionally uses fast-isel?
> > The other thing that might work, is having TargetMachine remember how
> > the fast-isel option got set, and make OptLevelChanger do the right
> > thing. But that seems like a hack to work around Mips not obeying the
> > specified optimization level, honestly.
>
> I think we should do that as well. I don't think it's right that optnone
> enables Fast
2009 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector
operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from
LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant
simplification. There are still some issues with this patch, but does
the approach look sane?
-Eli
-------------- next part --------------
Index: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorOps.cpp
2011 Jun 24
0
[LLVMdev] Infinite loop in llc on ARMv7 (LLVM HEAD from June 17)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> it looks like I do have infinite loop in llc on linux/armv7 platform
> somewhere in llvm::SmallVectorImpl. Two backtraces obtained with 10
> seconds delay are:
>
> 0x0099be14 in llvm::SmallVectorTemplateCommon<llvm::SDNode*>::setEnd
> (this=0x7ee90b38, P=0x5c06988)
2016 Mar 26
0
[SSP] Simplifying SSP code paths
I'm still working on SSP support in LLVM. We have code that is in an IR
pass StackProtector, SelectionDAG, FastISel, and some MachineFunction
passes. Even in SelectiondDAG we have different code paths. I wonder if we
can at least have only two code paths, one for SelectionDAG and the other
for FastISel.
IR pass may generate two forms of IR:
1) Almost pure IR, which contains only
2015 Nov 18
4
Mips unconditionally uses fast-isel?
Well, 'optnone' is already not identical to -O0, and given the nature of things, probably can't be; but I am persuaded that it's reasonable for it to honor the -fast-isel option as a debugging tactic. I'll take an AI to make this happen.
Thanks,
--paulr
P.S. One nit, the "O0 + optnone" case should not have an asterisk, the FastISel flag is not manipulated if the opt
2016 Nov 07
5
Running GlobaISel passes after SelectionDAG instruction selection
Hi,
I've been experimenting with global isel over the last few weeks and it
is such a vast improvement over the SelectionDAG for the AMDGPU target
that I would really like to begin using it as soon as possible.
Given the lack of a replacement for SelectionDAG's legalizer / combiner,
and how much work this will be to implement, I think the fastest path to
doing this would be to run some
2007 Sep 05
1
[LLVMdev] Exception Problems
Hi Anton & Duncan,
When I try to compile on Darwin now, I get this:
$ /Volumes/Gir/devel/llvm/llvm-gcc-4.0.obj/gcc/xgcc <options> -o
eh_alloc.o
Assertion failed: (false && "Couldn't find the register class"),
function getPhysicalRegisterRegClass, file /Volumes/Gir/devel/llvm/
llvm.src/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ScheduleDAG.cpp, line 269.
2012 Dec 06
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Replacing EVT:s with MVT:s (when possible)
Here is a series of patches replacing EVT with MVT at a number of places in TargetLowering. The last two patches are related cleanups in SelectionDAGBuilder.
/Patrik Hägglund
> git log --stat --reverse origin/master..
commit 8dabe3eb005360347eabb86a2e88c3b6e9098ed5
Author: Patrik Hägglund <patrik.h.hagglund at ericsson.com>
Date: Tue Dec 4 10:37:37 2012 +0100
Change
2012 Jun 27
2
[LLVMdev] [NVPTX] Backend failure in LegalizeDAG due to unimplemented expand in target lowering
Dear LLVM,
I'm trying to understand why the attached IR code works for x86_64
target and fails for nvptx64, because of unimplemented expand during
the target lowering. Any ideas?
Just change the target triple to x86_64-unknown-unknown, and the same
IR code could we successfully codegen-ed for x86_64.
Thanks,
- Dima.
dmikushin at dmikushin-desktop:~/Desktop$ gdb ~/sandbox/bin/llc
GNU gdb
2011 Jun 06
4
[LLVMdev] Understanding SelectionDAG construction
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
2015 Aug 01
3
[LLVMdev] SelectionDAG viewers, filter-view-dags question
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() {
2009 Feb 11
0
[LLVMdev] new warnings, I think
new warnings, I think
lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp: In member function
‘llvm::SDValue<unnamed>::DAGCombiner::FindBetterChain(llvm::SDNode*,
llvm::SDValue)’:
lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp:6006: warning:
‘SrcValueOffset’ may be used uninitialized in this function
lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp:6006: note: ‘SrcValueOffset’
was declared here
2012 Jan 20
1
[LLVMdev] SelectionDAG debug output
Hello all,
I am currently working with LLVM and make use of the debug output from
llc. The SelectionDAG dumping features are especially interesting to me
since I am looking for operation patterns that allow me to decide which
custom instructions can be added to a processor in order to improve the
performance.
Providing a -view-dag-combine1-dags option (and its friends) to llc show
the
2011 Jun 06
0
[LLVMdev] Understanding SelectionDAG construction
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]
2013 Apr 25
3
[LLVMdev] Proposal for new Legalization framework
On Apr 24, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
> One question :
>
> "In the spirit of the (long-term) intent to migrate away from the
> SelectionDAG framework"
>
> .. is this meant in general or just in respect to legalization?
Everything. This includes all of the custom lowering code for all of the targets, all of dagcombine, and maybe
2015 Jan 19
2
[LLVMdev] [INCOMPLETE] [GC] Support wrapping vararg functions in statepoint
I actually need this feature quite badly in my untyped language
compiler: since I support first-class functions, I've made the types of
all functions a standard vararg (so I can box them).
The implementation crashes when I try to read out the value of
gc.result. Hints as to what might be wrong?
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com>
---
2009 May 20
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector
> operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from
> LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant
> simplification. There are still some issues with this patch, but does
> the approach