Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "setforceframepoint".
Did you mean:
setforceframepointer
2012 Oct 23
2
[LLVMdev] x86 Frame Pointer with AVX
...ill be spilled and thus require dynamic stack realignment.
> for (unsigned i = 0, e = RI.getNumVirtRegs(); i != e; ++i) {
> unsigned Reg = TargetRegisterInfo::index2VirtReg(i);
> if (RI.getRegClass(Reg)->getAlignment() > StackAlignment) {
> FuncInfo->setForceFramePointer(true); // <= Forces Frame Pointer
for any AVX reg use!!!
> return true;
> }
> }
Just to be pedantic, at one time this did work properly for AVX without
adding the unnecessary frame pointer. It is a proper regression.
-Cameron
-------------- next part -----------...
2012 Oct 23
0
[LLVMdev] x86 Frame Pointer with AVX
...nd thus require dynamic stack realignment.
>> for (unsigned i = 0, e = RI.getNumVirtRegs(); i != e; ++i) {
>> unsigned Reg = TargetRegisterInfo::index2VirtReg(i);
>> if (RI.getRegClass(Reg)->getAlignment() > StackAlignment) {
>> FuncInfo->setForceFramePointer(true); // <= Forces Frame Pointer
>> for any AVX reg use!!!
>> return true;
>> }
>> }
>
> Just to be pedantic, at one time this did work properly for AVX without
> adding the unnecessary frame pointer. It is a proper regression.
>
Yeah,...
2012 Oct 23
4
[LLVMdev] x86 Frame Pointer with AVX
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote:
> > In trunk, the frame pointer is always set up when an AVX register is
> used in
> > a function. This is done in case 32-byte spill code is later introduced
> into
> > the function and hence dynamic stack realignment is needed. Needless to
> say,
> > it's a big hammer. This