Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "u659".
Did you mean:
659
2019 Nov 08
2
Register Dataflow Analysis on X86
Do you know whether it has been fixed on the 8.0.1 release?
Scott
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:45 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at quicinc.com>> wrote:
The one blocking issue that existed in the past has been fixed. I haven’t had time to do any work on it lately, but I’m not aware of any fundamental problems that would make it not work on x86.
--
2019 Dec 23
2
Register Dataflow Analysis on X86
...quot;<#1073741833>(d404,b1009):u1439", u1122"<#1073741833>(d1032,b1027):, u1442"<#1073741833>(d420,b1027):u1440", u1443"<#1073741833>(d404,b1027):u1441"]
...
// d1117 is used in def d645 of register R9D
s644: ADD32rr [d645<R9D>(+d1117,d694,u659):d634, d646<EFLAGS>!(d633,d651,):, u647<R9D>(+d1117):u637, u648<R9D>(+d1117):u647]
But after examining the corresponding MIR, I do not think that R11D flows into R9D. So it looks to me as though this phi node is erroneous.
Any help wold be much appreciated!
I'm using the LL...
2020 Jan 10
2
Register Dataflow Analysis on X86
...quot;<#1073741833>(d404,b1009):u1439", u1122"<#1073741833>(d1032,b1027):, u1442"<#1073741833>(d420,b1027):u1440", u1443"<#1073741833>(d404,b1027):u1441"]
...
// d1117 is used in def d645 of register R9D
s644: ADD32rr [d645<R9D>(+d1117,d694,u659):d634, d646<EFLAGS>!(d633,d651,):, u647<R9D>(+d1117):u637, u648<R9D>(+d1117):u647]
But after examining the corresponding MIR, I do not think that R11D flows into R9D. So it looks to me as though this phi node is erroneous.
Any help wold be much appreciated!
I'm using the LL...