search for: vreg87

...alue(). It traces in several iterations strangely back to the same register (inside a loop), finds it marked to be spilled, and the spill is cancelled: Inline spilling %vreg86 [1396r,2276r:0) 0 at 1396r >From original %vreg76 Tracing value %vreg86:0 at 1396r %vreg86:0 at 1396r: copy of %vreg87:6 at 1168r kill=1 %vreg87:6 at 1168r: copy of %vreg87:5 at 1120B kill=1 %vreg87:5 at 1120B: split phi value, checking 1 phi-defs, and 2 non-phi/orig defs %vreg87:7 at 2276r: copy of %vreg86:0 at 1396r kill=1 traced to: spill %vreg86:0 at 1396r all-reloads kill deps[ 7 at 22...

...alue(). It traces in several iterations strangely back to the same register (inside a loop), finds it marked to be spilled, and the spill is cancelled: Inline spilling %vreg86 [1396r,2276r:0) 0 at 1396r >From original %vreg76 Tracing value %vreg86:0 at 1396r %vreg86:0 at 1396r: copy of %vreg87:6 at 1168r kill=1 %vreg87:6 at 1168r: copy of %vreg87:5 at 1120B kill=1 %vreg87:5 at 1120B: split phi value, checking 1 phi-defs, and 2 non-phi/orig defs %vreg87:7 at 2276r: copy of %vreg86:0 at 1396r kill=1 traced to: spill %vreg86:0 at 1396r all-reloads kill deps[ 7 at 22...

...lem you reported and although the fix you proposed seem correct, I am not sure yet this is the way to go. I would need the debug output of the regalloc to help you further, but here are my initial findings. traceSiblingValue looked into the problematic phi because the previous iteration said that %vreg87:6 and %vreg87:5 are sibling. Since they are sibling it means they share the same original vreg. The problem is that if vreg87:5, i.e., the original phi, is not the original value then it must have been inserted by splitting. Based on what you said this is not the case, so we end up in this weird si...

...d although the fix you proposed seem correct, I am not sure yet this is the way to go. I would need the debug output of the regalloc to help you further, but here are my initial findings. >> >> traceSiblingValue looked into the problematic phi because the previous iteration said that %vreg87:6 and %vreg87:5 are sibling. >> Since they are sibling it means they share the same original vreg. >> The problem is that if vreg87:5, i.e., the original phi, is not the original value then it must have been inserted by splitting. >> Based on what you said this is not the case, so...

...reg83 dbg:IfVectorize.c:42:18 from BB#12 to BB#11 Hoist non-reg-pressure: %vreg86<def> = VLOAD_D 1; MSA128D:%vreg86 dbg:IfVectorize.c:42:13 Hoisting %vreg86<def> = VLOAD_D 1; MSA128D:%vreg86 dbg:IfVectorize.c:42:13 from BB#12 to BB#11 Hoist non-reg-pressure: %vreg87<def> = VLOAD_D 0; MSA128D:%vreg87 dbg:IfVectorize.c:42:18 Hoisting %vreg87<def> = VLOAD_D 0; MSA128D:%vreg87 dbg:IfVectorize.c:42:18 from BB#12 to BB#11 Hoist non-reg-pressure: %vreg85<def> = VLOAD_D 101; MSA128D:%vreg85 dbg:IfVectorize.c:42:13 Hoisting %vreg...