similar to: problem with non-allocatable register classes

Hi, ABCRegister.td : def SGPR32 : RegisterClass<"ABC", [i32], 16, (add S0, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, S12, S13, S14, S15 )>; def SFGPR32 : RegisterClass<"ABC", [f32], 16, (add S0, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, S12, S13, S14, S15 )>; ===== Instruction selection ends: ... t8: i32 = ADDrr t37, t32

I have not tried 3.5, it's a significant amount of work to port from one version to the next though, I did not personally do the 3.4 to 3.6 porting. I agree though, it was very strange that it suddenly just changed behavior. It looks like to me that InstrEmitter.cpp:getVR is the one assigning the virtual register no? Though this code in CreateVirtualRegisters: const TargetRegisterClass *RC

AddRegisterOperand calls getVR and yes, I think an IMPLICIT_DEF is being generated. On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I have not tried 3.5, it's a significant amount of work to port from one > version to the next though, I did not

1. MOV16Copy_IMM_REG is the instruction matched, sorry. AD is the multiclass. The IMM in my case is a global. So you can see that GPRBaseRegs, GPRBaseRegs sets the registerclass for both the src and dst operands, in this case (MOV16Copy_IMM_REG) it's the dst. 2. Yes I agree, it most likely would. Honestly, this comes across like a bug, or unintended feature. It's adding an extra COPY to

Here is the instruction in question: multiclass AD<string asmstr, SDPatternOperator OpNode, RegisterClass srcAReg, RegisterClass dstReg, ValueType srcAType, ValueType dstType, Operand ImmOd, ImmLeaf imm_type> { def REG_REG : SetADInOut<asmstr, srcAReg, dstReg, [(set dstReg:$dstD, (OpNode srcAReg:$srcA))]>; def IMM_REG :

Hi Ryan, > On Aug 24, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Quentin, > > I apologize for the spamming here but in getVR (where VReg is assigned an RC), it calls: > > const TargetRegisterClass *RC = TLI->getRegClassFor(Op.getSimpleValueType()); > VReg = MRI->createVirtualRegister(RC); > > My question is why is it using the

BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry %vreg0<def> = MOV16Copy_IMM_REG <ga:@a+1>[TF=1]; GPRRegs:%vreg0 %vreg1<def> = COPY %vreg0; PTRRegs:%vreg1 GPRRegs:%vreg0 Send_iii %NULLR0, %vreg1<kill>, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0; PTRRegs:%vreg1 RetRA This is what I get. This is what I'd like to get: BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry %vreg0<def> = MOV16Copy_IMM_REG

> On Aug 24, 2015, at 4:46 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is the snippet that matters: > > void > InstrEmitter::AddRegisterOperand(MachineInstrBuilder &MIB, > SDValue Op, > unsigned IIOpNum, > const MCInstrDesc *II, >

On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Carlos Sánchez de La Lama wrote: > Hi people, > > the LinearScan register allocator tries to use same register for both > live intervals, if the new interval is defined by a register copy > whose destination reg is compatible with the source register. This is > ok. However, this "check for compatibility" is wrongly done IMHO. >

Hi Jakob, >> Say I have regclass1 with reg A, and regclass2 with regs {A, B}, but >> regclass2 defines only "B" as allocatable by RA. > > The register allocator assumes in many places that a register is > either allocatable or reserved independently of the register class. Is there any reason for this? I mean, the methods for allowing one physical reg be

Quentin, This is the issue. Somewhere prior to the constrainRegClass, it's assigning the GPRBase sub class of GPR to the MOV instruction, so it can't constrain it to Base and hence has to add the COPY. Now I just need to find out why it is ignoring the TableGen defined GPRBase for the MOV MI in favor of it's sub class GPR. Thanks. On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Ryan Taylor

Hi people, the LinearScan register allocator tries to use same register for both live intervals, if the new interval is defined by a register copy whose destination reg is compatible with the source register. This is ok. However, this "check for compatibility" is wrongly done IMHO. Say I have regclass1 with reg A, and regclass2 with regs {A, B}, but regclass2 defines only

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > 2005/7/23, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: >> What does a 'read only' register mean? Is it a constant (e.g. returns >> 1.0)? Otherwise, how can it be a useful value? > > Yes, it's a constant register. > > Because the instruction cannot contain an immediate value, a constant > value may be stored in

Hi Wonsun, can you please provide a testcase. Best wishes, Duncan. > I've noticed that LLVM does a bad job of optimizing array indexing > code for FORTRAN arrays declared using the ALLOCATABLE keyword. > > For example if you have something like the following: > > DOUBLE PRECISION,ALLOCATABLE,DIMENSION(:,:,:,:) :: QAV > ... > ALLOCATE( QAV(

> On Aug 24, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm trying to do something like this: > > // Dst = NewVReg's reg class > // *II = MCInstrDesc > // IIOpNum = II Operand Num > > if (TRI->getCommonSubClass(DstRC, TRI->getRegClass(II->OpInfo[IIOpNum].RegClass)) == DstRC) > MRI->setRegClass(VReg, DstRC); >

I've noticed that LLVM does a bad job of optimizing array indexing code for FORTRAN arrays declared using the ALLOCATABLE keyword. For example if you have something like the following: DOUBLE PRECISION,ALLOCATABLE,DIMENSION(:,:,:,:) :: QAV ... ALLOCATE( QAV( -2:IMAX+2,-2:JMAX+2,-2:KMAX+2,ND) ) ... DO L = 1, 5 DO K = K1, K2 DO J = J1, J2 DO I = I1, I2 II = I +

In the X86RegisterInfo.td file, RST is defined like this: // Floating point stack registers (these are not allocatable by the // register allocator - the floating point stackifier is responsible // for transforming FPn allocations to STn registers) def RST : RegisterClass<"X86", [f64], 32, [ST0, ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4, ST5, ST6, ST7]> { let MethodProtos =

Hi all, This is a RFC on support for Global Register Variables in the Arm backend. Whilst there has been some prior discussion about whether or not LLVM should (or even needs to) support global register variables, today there seems to be a good measure of support for this in both Clang+LLVM (although it is currently limited to SP). When most of this support landed there was some concern

2005/7/23, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: > > What does a 'read only' register mean? Is it a constant (e.g. returns > 1.0)? Otherwise, how can it be a useful value? Yes, it's a constant register. Because the instruction cannot contain an immediate value, a constant value may be stored in a constant register, and it's defined _before_ the program starts by

Thanks, I think it can solve my problem. But please allow me to explain the hardware in detail. Hope there is more elegant way to solve it. The hardware is a "stream processor". That is, It processes samples one by one. Each sample is associated with several 128-bit four-element vector registers, namely: * input registers - the attributes of the sample, the values of the registers