search for: setroot

...number debug information for PIC16 target. PIC16 does not support dwarf format. It supports coff format. So I need to custom handle the STOPPOINT nodes. Without -fast option the STOPPOINT nodes are not created in dag because of the below check in SelectionDAGBuild.cpp if (Fast) DAG.setRoot(DAG.getDbgStopPoint(getRoot(), If I give -fast option then the Fast flag is true, but the dag doesn't contain STOPPOINT nodes. If I have simple loads and stores in source code, the dag doesn't contain them too. Why are these nodes not being created? Thanks Vasudev

Hi, I'm not sure. But in your lowered DAG the chain nodes are the first operands for you custom nodes, however for the other nodes the chain is the last operand. I seem to remember that during targetlowering the chain is the first operand and then it seems to switch over after ISelDAG, this confused me and may have something to do with the issue that you are seeing. I really don't

...) { + DependentMemOps.push_back(PendingMemOp); + } else { + IndependentMemOps.push_back(PendingMemOp); + } + } + + if (DependentMemOps.empty()) + return DAG.getRoot(); + + if (DependentMemOps.size() == 1) { + SDOperand Root = DependentMemOps[0]; + DAG.setRoot(Root); + PendingLoads = IndependentMemOps; + return Root; + } + + // Otherwise, we have to make a token factor node. + SDOperand Root = DAG.getNode(ISD::TokenFactor, MVT::Other, + &DependentMemOps[0], DependentMemOps.size()); + PendingLoads...

...s what the codegen of an InvokeInst does. However, when generating native code, only BeginLabel is generated, and it is generated after the instruction. I'm not familiar with DAGs in the codegen library, so here are my 2-cents thoughts why: 1) BeginLabel and EndLabel are generated with: DAG.setRoot(DAG.getNode(ISD::LABEL, MVT::Other, getRoot(), DAG.getConstant({Begin|End}Label, MVT::i32))); This seems to work with InvokeInst instructions, because the root of the DAG is modified by the instruction. With instructions such as sdiv, the root is not modified: the instr...

...al, SDOperand Ptr, const Value *SV, int SVOffset, bool isVolatile=false); In SelectionDAGISel.cpp in SelectionDAGLowering::getLoadFrom and SelectionDAGLowering::visitStore they are called like this: L = DAG.getLoad(TLI.getValueType(Ty), Root, Ptr, SV, isVolatile); DAG.setRoot(DAG.getStore(getRoot(), Src, Ptr, I.getOperand(1), I.isVolatile())); The isVolatile arguments are being passed to the SVOffset parameters. Dan -- Dan Gohman, Cray Inc. <djg at cray.com>

...port dwarf format. It supports coff format. So I >> need >> to custom handle the STOPPOINT nodes. Without -fast option the >> STOPPOINT >> nodes are not created in dag because of the below check in >> SelectionDAGBuild.cpp >> if (Fast) >> DAG.setRoot(DAG.getDbgStopPoint(getRoot(), >> If I give -fast option then the Fast flag is true, but the dag doesn't >> contain STOPPOINT nodes. >> > > Right. Currently, the way we tell whether optimization was requested > at the command line level is to look at -fast; -O...

...get. > PIC16 does not support dwarf format. It supports coff format. So I > need > to custom handle the STOPPOINT nodes. Without -fast option the > STOPPOINT > nodes are not created in dag because of the below check in > SelectionDAGBuild.cpp > if (Fast) > DAG.setRoot(DAG.getDbgStopPoint(getRoot(), > If I give -fast option then the Fast flag is true, but the dag doesn't > contain STOPPOINT nodes. Right. Currently, the way we tell whether optimization was requested at the command line level is to look at -fast; -O0 == -fast. The stoppoint nodes enfo...

...supports coff format. So I >>> need >>> to custom handle the STOPPOINT nodes. Without -fast option the >>> STOPPOINT >>> nodes are not created in dag because of the below check in >>> SelectionDAGBuild.cpp >>> if (Fast) >>> DAG.setRoot(DAG.getDbgStopPoint(getRoot(), >>> If I give -fast option then the Fast flag is true, but the dag >>> doesn't >>> contain STOPPOINT nodes. >>> >> >> Right. Currently, the way we tell whether optimization was requested >> at the command li...

...acket them. > However, when generating native code, only BeginLabel is generated, and > it is generated after the instruction. I'm not familiar with DAGs in the > codegen library, so here are my 2-cents thoughts why: > > 1) BeginLabel and EndLabel are generated with: > DAG.setRoot(DAG.getNode(ISD::LABEL, MVT::Other, getRoot(), > DAG.getConstant({Begin|End}Label, MVT::i32))); > > This seems to work with InvokeInst instructions, because the root of the > DAG is modified by the instruction. With instructions such as sdiv, the > root i...

...ue(F); > > - Res = DAG.getNode(ISD::TRAMPOLINE, dl, > - DAG.getVTList(TLI.getPointerTy(), MVT::Other), > - Ops, 6); > + Res = DAG.getNode(ISD::INIT_TRAMPOLINE, dl, MVT::Other, Ops, 6); > > - setValue(&I, Res); > - DAG.setRoot(Res.getValue(1)); > + DAG.setRoot(Res); > + return 0; > + } > + case Intrinsic::adjust_trampoline: { > + setValue(&I, DAG.getNode(ISD::ADJUST_TRAMPOLINE, dl, > + TLI.getPointerTy(), > + getValue(I.getArgOper...

Hi! Attached set of patches splits llvm.init.trampoline into an "init" phase and an "adjust" phase, as discussed on the "Go on dragonegg" thread. Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Split-intrinsics-and-DAG-nodes.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 8808 bytes Desc:

...owever, when generating native code, only BeginLabel is generated, and >> it is generated after the instruction. I'm not familiar with DAGs in the >> codegen library, so here are my 2-cents thoughts why: >> >> 1) BeginLabel and EndLabel are generated with: >> DAG.setRoot(DAG.getNode(ISD::LABEL, MVT::Other, getRoot(), >> DAG.getConstant({Begin|End}Label, MVT::i32))); >> >> This seems to work with InvokeInst instructions, because the root of the >> DAG is modified by the instruction. With instructions such as sdiv,...

...> However, when generating native code, only BeginLabel is generated, > and > it is generated after the instruction. I'm not familiar with DAGs > in the > codegen library, so here are my 2-cents thoughts why: > > 1) BeginLabel and EndLabel are generated with: > DAG.setRoot(DAG.getNode(ISD::LABEL, MVT::Other, getRoot(), > DAG.getConstant({Begin|End}Label, > MVT::i32))); > > This seems to work with InvokeInst instructions, because the root > of the > DAG is modified by the instruction. With instructions such as sdiv,...

On Dec 19, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > 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. I am not sure if it is a good idea to do this at scheduling time. LLVM explicitly models control flows dependencies as chain operands. This eliminated

...gt;>>> need >>>> to custom handle the STOPPOINT nodes. Without -fast option the >>>> STOPPOINT >>>> nodes are not created in dag because of the below check in >>>> SelectionDAGBuild.cpp >>>> if (Fast) >>>> DAG.setRoot(DAG.getDbgStopPoint(getRoot(), >>>> If I give -fast option then the Fast flag is true, but the dag >>>> doesn't >>>> contain STOPPOINT nodes. >>>> >>>> >>> Right. Currently, the way we tell whether optimization was...

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? > I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would > mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction > and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you > anticipating something more

On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > 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

...end()); I != next(E); ++I) - HandleOp(SDValue(I, 0)); + LegalizeOp(SDValue(I, 0)); // Finally, it's possible the root changed. Get the new root. SDValue OldRoot = DAG.getRoot(); assert(LegalizedNodes.count(OldRoot) && "Root didn't get legalized?"); DAG.setRoot(LegalizedNodes[OldRoot]); - ExpandedNodes.clear(); LegalizedNodes.clear(); - PromotedNodes.clear(); - SplitNodes.clear(); - ScalarizedNodes.clear(); - WidenNodes.clear(); // Remove dead nodes now. DAG.RemoveDeadNodes(); @@ -458,17 +306,7 @@ // If the first result of this node...