Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "vreginfo".
Did you mean:
reginfo
2008 Jan 02
1
[LLVMdev] anyone seeing this assertion failure?
I'm seeing this when I run the fibonacci program via the win32 build.
VRegInfo has size 0, and the debug STL in VStudio is asserting when
&VRegInfo[0] is hit. Is anyone else seeing this?
unsigned createVirtualRegister(const TargetRegisterClass *RegClass) {
assert(RegClass && "Cannot create register without RegClass!");
// Add a reg, but...
2008 Apr 01
2
[LLVMdev] reg_iterator Caveats
...ructions
are added or deleted. Do I need to depend on some Pass?
What does coalescing do with this information? Does it update it as
intervals are merged and instructions are changed? I thought
MachineRegisterInfo::replaceRegWith might handle this but it doesn't
update MachineRegisterInfo::VRegInfo.
-Dave
2008 Apr 01
0
[LLVMdev] reg_iterator Caveats
...you change the
register an operand refers to.
> What does coalescing do with this information? Does it update it as
> intervals are merged and instructions are changed? I thought
> MachineRegisterInfo::replaceRegWith might handle this but it doesn't
> update MachineRegisterInfo::VRegInfo.
No passes need to update this info explicitly.
-Chris
--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/
2008 Apr 01
0
[LLVMdev] reg_iterator Caveats
On Monday 31 March 2008 18:55, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Evan Cheng wrote:
> >> I just discovered that def_itterator (and presumably, reg_iterator)
> >> doesn't
> >> include implicit defs, for example at function calls for caller-save
> >> physical
> >> registers. Guh. I'm not sure if it should or not, but it's
2011 Jan 09
2
[LLVMdev] Increasing TargetRegisterInfo::FirstVirtualRegister?
On Jan 7, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> We might want to make physical registers negative and virtuals positive, or vice versa. Then FirstVirtualRegister is 0 or 1, and we could get rid of those annoying subtractions of FirstVirtualRegister all over the virtual-register-handling passes. Since 0 is used all over the place as "invalid register" it is probably best to
2008 Mar 31
5
[LLVMdev] reg_iterator Caveats
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Evan Cheng wrote:
>> I just discovered that def_itterator (and presumably, reg_iterator)
>> doesn't
>> include implicit defs, for example at function calls for caller-save
>> physical
>> registers. Guh. I'm not sure if it should or not, but it's certainly
>> necessary information in some cases. Is this expected behavior, or an