similar to: Efficiently ignoring upper 32 pointer bits when dereferencing

Hi Eli, Thanks, I’ll look into that then! Cheers, Taddeüs From: Friedman, Eli Sent: Wednesday, 2 August 2017 19:48 To: Taddeus; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Efficiently ignoring upper 32 pointer bits whendereferencing On 8/2/2017 9:03 AM, Taddeus via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi all, > > I am experiencing a problem with the representation of addresses in > the x86_64

When trying to run test/CodeGen/X86/liveness-local-regalloc.ll with the command line options "-optimize-regalloc=0 -verify-machineinstrs -mcpu-atom", the test fails right after the Post-RA pseudo instruction pass with the messages *** Bad machine code: Using an undefined physical register *** - function: autogen_SD24657 - basic block: BB 0x2662d60 (BB#0) - instruction:

I am wondering about register allocation when there is a kill flag on the MachineOperand. Do I need to remove the kill flag? This code below is just an example from test\CodeGen\X86\xor.ll # Machine code for function test3: Frame Objects: fi#-2: size=4, align=4, fixed, at location [SP+8] fi#-1: size=4, align=8, fixed, at location [SP+4] Function Live Outs: %EAX BB#0: derived from LLVM BB

I have an llvm ir, which generates the following machine code using llc (llvm 3.0 on win32) after # *** IR Dump After X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection ***: The first three lines and the last two lines alone together are used to compute "sin" for some double number. - line 1: move the stack pointer down 8 - line 2: copy the updated stack pointer to a base register - line 3: copy a

On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:25 AMPDT, Argyrios Kyrtzidis wrote: > >> The attached .ll files seem equivalent, but the resulting asm from >> 'opt-fail.ll' causes a crash to webkit. >> I suspect the usage of registers is wrong, can someone take a look ? > > Yes, the code here is wrong: > >> movl

Hi, I'm still having problems implementing my custom inserter in the X86 backend. I found a solution to my last problem (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-October/078296.html), by using a virtual register. The binary works when it's compiled in -O0, but not in -O1,-O2,... I really can't figure what I'm doing wrong... Any idea? Here is the code of my custom

Hi Peng, Can you please open a bugzilla and attache the LL file ? Can you please reproduce it on ToT ? Thanks, Nadav On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Peng Cheng <gm4cheng at gmail.com> wrote: > I have an llvm ir, which generates the following machine code using llc (llvm 3.0 on win32) after # *** IR Dump After X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection ***: > > The first three lines

Hi, While working some more on the backend, I've added callee register saving and have come across something odd (I assume its because i've not implemented something), this is with optimisations which makes it even more odd : MOV.L [R7+ 12], R1 ; 4-byte Folded Spill MOV.L [R7+ 8], R2 ; 4-byte Folded Spill ADD.L R0,R0 + R1 ADD.L

I am trying to locate a bug that affects my Blackfin backend. I am having some trouble understanding the semantics of def/kill flags on machine operands when using subregisters. I compile this function: define void @i56_ls(i56 %x) nounwind { store i56 %x, i56* @i56_s ret void } And get this initial machine code: Live Ins: %R0 %R1 %reg1025D<def> = MOVE %R1 %reg1024D<def> =

hi, i know it took a while, but here is a patch that adds a list of source values to machine instructions. i modified the DAGISelEmiter to automatically catch regular loads/stores. custom instructions and loads/stores rewritten by the lowering pass are not automatically captured. during the instruction selection a source value operand is added to the DAG for patterns matching a load/store.

Hi, I want to know what is the type or size of a virtual register in a Machineinstr::MachineOperand (If this MachineOperand is a register). For example, what is the size of reg16385 in the following MachineInstr. I know now in the llvm bitcode, the type of a Instruction could be obtained from the Value::GetType(), but what is the counterpart in MachineInstr (not derived from class Value)?

We have a function that has 256 loads and 256 fmuladds. This block of operations is bounded at either end by an OpenCL barrier (an AMDIL fence instruction). The loads and multiply/adds are ordinarily interleaved... that is, the IR going in to code generation looks like: %39 = load float addrspace(3)* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x [17 x float]] addrspace(3)* @sgemm.b, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0), align

Evan, thanks for responding so quickly. On Tuesday 26 June 2007 14:11, Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:20 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > > 28 %AL<dead> = MOV8rr %reg1024<kill>, %EAX<imp-def> > > MOV8rr %mreg(2)<d> %reg1024 %mreg(17)<d> > > 32 CALL64pcrel32 <ga:printf>, %RDI<kill>, %RAX<imp-def>, %RCX<imp- > >

Hi, I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, to save some time. But when I look into the X86InstrInfo.td, I have a very strong feeling that it is one of the most complex instruction set descriptions compared to other targets. I can imagine that this is due to the complexity of X86's

On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:28 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Jakob Stoklund Olesen <jolesen at apple.com> writes: > >>> What happens if the result of the above pattern using COPY_TO_REGCLASS >>> is spilled? Will we get a 64-bit store or a 128-bit store? >> >> This behavior isn't affected by the change. FR64 registers are spilled >> with 64-bit

On Jul 13, 2009, at 10:02 AM, David Greene wrote: >>> - Tag instructons with source line information (customers really >>> want this). >> >> Right, that would be nice. This should be synthesizable from the >> DebugLoc on the instruction in the asm printer, no need to >> redundantly >> encode it into the comment field. > > Except the DebugLoc

Hi,every one. I' in trouble again. I want add a new intrinsic mapping a new instruction. I add the int_x86_max_qb as fllowing: def int_x86_max_qb: GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_x86_max_qb">, Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [llvm_i32_ty, llvm_i32_ty], [Commutative]>; BUILTIN(__builtin_x86_max_qb, "iii", "") I define the intrinsic as Pseudo instruction,it

For the x86-64 target, I tried compiling a simple hello world. I don't understand the live interval information. Here's the machine instructions as dumped by LiveIntervalAnalysis: ********** MACHINEINSTRS ********** file hello.c line 3 b: 0 FNSTCW16m <fi#0>, 1, %NOREG, 0 FNSTCW16m <fi#0> 1 %mreg(0) 0 4 MOV8mi <fi#0>, 1, %NOREG, 1, 2 MOV8mi <fi#0> 1 %mreg(0) 1 2 8

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:43 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Jakob Stoklund Olesen <jolesen at apple.com> writes: > >> As far as I can tell, all sub-register operations involving sub_ss and >> sub_sd can simply be replaced with COPY_TO_REGCLASS: >> >> def : Pat<(v4i32 (X86Movsd VR128:$src1, VR128:$src2)), >> (VMOVSDrr VR128:$src1,

Jakob Stoklund Olesen <jolesen at apple.com> writes: >> What happens if the result of the above pattern using COPY_TO_REGCLASS >> is spilled? Will we get a 64-bit store or a 128-bit store? > > This behavior isn't affected by the change. FR64 registers are spilled > with 64-bit stores, and VR128 registers are spilled with 128-bit > stores. > > When the