search for: superregs

Hi, Consider this MI code from the hexagon backend. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 16B %vreg0<def> = COPY %R0<kill>; IntRegs:%vreg0 32B %vreg1<def> = LDriw %vreg0, 0; mem:LD4[%a],IntRegs:%vreg1,%vreg0 48B %vreg2<def> = LDriw_indexed %vreg0<kill>, 4; mem:LD4[%add.ptr] IntRegs:%vreg2,%vreg0 64B

On May 14, 2012, at 4:09 PM, "Pranav Bhandarkar" <pranavb at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Consider this MI code from the hexagon backend. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 16B %vreg0<def> = COPY %R0<kill>; IntRegs:%vreg0 > 32B %vreg1<def> = LDriw %vreg0, 0; mem:LD4[%a] >

Hi, Recently on trunk, the ovlaps list for a register got a dual entry on my target, which caused the RA to crash. Reg Subreg1 Subreg b Subreg2 Subreg b I have a register with two subregs that have subreg b in common. This causes the SuperReg to appear twice in the ovelaps list for Subreg b. As this causes a register allocator to crasch (it evicts a register, and then inremenets

Hello, David > How does ${dst:subreg32} work? This is just modifier provided to asmprinting code. Here, it seems, 16 bit register is passed to asmprinter, but it sees modifier and grabs 32-bit superreg. > Can one do the same for sources? Yes, this is just modifier for printing, nothing more... > Is it preferable to use the source modifier or write an EXTRACT_SUBREG > pattern

What's the value produced by an INSERT_SUBREG node? Is it a chain? Can I use to set a superreg of i16 type with two i8 values, and use the supperreg as an operand somewhere else? - Sanjiv -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20081002/f07bc88c/attachment.html>

On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:19 -0700, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote: > > > What’s the value produced by an INSERT_SUBREG node? Is it a chain? > > > No, insert_subreg returns a value: > > > v1 = insert_subreg v2, v3, idx > > > v1 and v2 will have the same type, e.g. i16, and v3 must have a >

On Tuesday 24 November 2009 14:12, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, David > > > How does ${dst:subreg32} work? > > This is just modifier provided to asmprinting code. Here, it seems, 16 > bit register is passed to asmprinter, but it sees modifier and grabs > 32-bit superreg. > > > Can one do the same for sources? > > Yes, this is just modifier for printing,

Hi, I have a MachineInstr that writes to a subreg, but clobbers the superreg. How should I BuildMI this instruction? I try to do a IMPLICIT_DEF super_reg and then write to a subreg of that super register , but it gets DCE:ed. Is there a way to express this clobbering of a superregister? thanks, Jonas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

On May 11, 2012, at 6:35 AM, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Recently on trunk, the ovlaps list for a register got a dual entry on my target, which caused the RA to crash. > > Reg > Subreg1 > Subreg b > Subreg2 > Subreg b > > I have a register with two subregs that have subreg b in common. This causes the

On Oct 2, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote: > What’s the value produced by an INSERT_SUBREG node? Is it a chain? No, insert_subreg returns a value: v1 = insert_subreg v2, v3, idx v1 and v2 will have the same type, e.g. i16, and v3 must have a sub- register type, e.g. i8. > Can I use to set a superreg of i16 type with two i8 values, and use > the supperreg as

You need to specify sub-register == super-register, idx relationship. See X86RegisterInfo.td: def x86_subreg_8bit : PatLeaf<(i32 1)>; def x86_subreg_16bit : PatLeaf<(i32 2)>; def x86_subreg_32bit : PatLeaf<(i32 3)>; def : SubRegSet<1, [AX, CX, DX, BX, SP, BP, SI, DI, R8W, R9W, R10W, R11W, R12W, R13W, R14W, R15W], [AL, CL,

I'm trying to debug a problem with our custom backend with using a tiered register allocation setup. Just a little background. My target uses vec4 32bit registers and I want to have three levels of registers setup. Each vec4 register can have two sub-regs of size vec2 32bit, and each sub-reg, has its own two sub-regs of 32bit each. So it looks like this, xyzw -> {xy, zw} -> {x, y, z,

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

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:19 -0700, Evan Cheng wrote: > You need to specify sub-register == super-register, idx relationship. > See X86RegisterInfo.td: > > def x86_subreg_8bit : PatLeaf<(i32 1)>; > def x86_subreg_16bit : PatLeaf<(i32 2)>; > def x86_subreg_32bit : PatLeaf<(i32 3)>; > > def : SubRegSet<1, [AX, CX, DX, BX, SP, BP, SI, DI, >

On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I'm trying to debug a problem with our custom backend with using a tiered register allocation setup. > > Just a little background. My target uses vec4 32bit registers and I want to have three levels of registers setup. > Each vec4 register can have two sub-regs of size vec2 32bit, and each sub-reg, has its own two sub-regs of

Right Matthias, I am aware that an implementation for storeRegToStackSlot()/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

To make my point clear, I believe an implementation of storeRegToStackSlot()/loadRegFromStackSlot() is not sufficient (as it received the physical register already). Does this make sense? On 2018-01-30 13:33, ahmede wrote: > Right Matthias, I am aware that an implementation for > storeRegToStackSlot()/loadRegFromStackSlot() is necessary. But these > functions receive the physical

From: Jakob Stoklund Olesen [mailto:stoklund at 2pi.dk] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 2:56 PM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] (no subject) On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: I'm trying to debug a problem with our custom backend with using a tiered register allocation setup. Just a little background. My target uses vec4 32bit registers and

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, > >

On Oct 15, 2008, at 5:29 AM, sanjiv gupta wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:19 -0700, Evan Cheng wrote: >> You need to specify sub-register == super-register, idx relationship. >> See X86RegisterInfo.td: >> >> def x86_subreg_8bit : PatLeaf<(i32 1)>; >> def x86_subreg_16bit : PatLeaf<(i32 2)>; >> def x86_subreg_32bit : PatLeaf<(i32