search for: spillar

...StackSlot()/loadRegFromStackSlot() is necessary. But these functions receive the physical register that need to be spilled, they might receive the sub-register. In this case, using the super-register naively is unsafe (e.g., one might overwrite parts of it). Thus, I think the register allocator/spillar need to be aware of the exact register that is spilled. On 2018-01-30 13:23, Matthias Braun wrote: > I still think my answer applies that you have to modify > storeRegToStackSlot()/loadRegFromStackSlot(). They decide how > registers are spilled and reloaded. Nobody is stopping you from...

...RegFromStackSlot() is necessary. But these > functions receive the physical register that need to be spilled, they > might receive the sub-register. In this case, using the super-register > naively is unsafe (e.g., one might overwrite parts of it). Thus, I > think the register allocator/spillar need to be aware of the exact > register that is spilled. > > > > On 2018-01-30 13:23, Matthias Braun wrote: >> I still think my answer applies that you have to modify >> storeRegToStackSlot()/loadRegFromStackSlot(). They decide how >> registers are spilled and r...

I still think my answer applies that you have to modify storeRegToStackSlot()/loadRegFromStackSlot(). They decide how registers are spilled and reloaded. Nobody is stopping you from using super registers spills/reloads to implement spilling/reloading smaller registers there. - Matthias > On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:21 AM, ahmede <ahmede at ece.ubc.ca> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > >

Hi Quentin, Let me clarify if I understood this correctly. If the accesses (writes and reads) to sub-registers are expressed always as sub-registers of the super-register register class (e.g., SuperReg.sub1;), then the spilling decision is for the super register. But, if the accesses are in terms of the register class of the sub-registers directly (SubReg;), then the spilling decision will