similar to: Empty implementation of SchedulingPriorityQueue::dump

Hello. Hal, the problem I have is that it doesn't advance at the next available instruction - it always gets the same store. This might be because I did not specify in a file like [Target]Schedule.td the functional units, processor and instruction itineraries. Regarding the Stalls argument to my method [Target]DispatchGroupSBHazardRecognizer::getHazardType() I always get the

Hi, I have an assert firing due to PickNodeToScheduleBottomUp(): 1. having a CallResource in use pushing an interference of current SUnit. 2. having no more SUnits in the AvailableQueue 3. The only interference being the SUnit that just failed due to a Call Resource. 4. An attempt to duplicate this node which has the 'Call Resource' as a physical register. Thus the call

Here is a bit more data. After PrescheduleNodesWithMultipleUses has been run, the following Predecessor/Successor links are 'dumpAll'ed. (I attach the full dumpAll before & after "Prescheduling SU #7 next to PredSU #4 to guide scheduling in the presence of multiple uses") SU(3) Predecessors: val SU(5): Latency=1 ch SU(7): Latency=1 val SU(7): Latency=1 SU(7):

Hi, I have reasoned through and believe the problem is with the PrescheduleNodesWithMultipleUses. Take the following DAG (arrow to predecessor): Destroy Destroy ^ ^ | | | | SetUp----->PredSU <-----SU ^ ^ ^ | | | | | | ----------- |

Hello. I am progressing a bit with difficulty with the post RA scheduler (PostRASchedulerList.cpp with ScoreboardHazardRecognizer) - the problem I have is that it doesn't advance at the next available instruction when the overridden ScoreboardHazardRecognizer::getHazardType() method returns NoopHazard and it gets stuck at the same instruction (store in my runs). Just to make sure:

So if I use the SchedMachineModel method, can I just skip itineraries? Phil On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Target does make a difference. VLIW needs more hand-holding. For what you > are describing it should be fairly simple. > > > > Best strategy – see what other targets do. ARM might be a good start for > generic

Hello everyone, I am working on a release based on the branch 3.1 version of code. Unfortunately it has enough differences that exact rev does not apply. I am hitting an assert in liveness update with seemingly trivial code (attached). /local/mnt/workspace/slarin/tools/llvm-mainline-merged/lib/CodeGen/LiveInter valAnalysis.cpp:1078: void

Hi Phil. You more or less answered your own question, but let me give you some more info. Maybe it is of use. >From what I understand the SchedMachineModel is the future, although it is not as powerful as itineraries at present. The mi-scheduler is mostly developed around out-of-orders cores, I believe (I love to hear arguments on the contrary). Some of the constraints that can be found in

On Jun 12, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I am working on a release based on the branch 3.1 version of code. > Unfortunately it has enough differences that exact rev does not apply. > I am hitting an assert in liveness update with seemingly trivial code > (attached). > >

On Jun 11, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Looking at VLIWPacketizerList::PacketizeMIs, it seems like the > instructions are first scheduled (via some external scheme?), and then > packetized 'in order'. Is that correct? Anshu? > In the PowerPC grouping scheme, resources are assigned on a group > basis (by the instruction dispatching

Also you might need to check use PostRASchedulerList or PostMachineScheduler, PostRASchedulerList is considered deprecated as mentioned in [1]. [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112348.html HTH, chenwj 2017-06-10 4:03 GMT+08:00 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw>: > Not saying I am totally understand how thing works, but I think you're > misleading >

Hi All, I am trying to construct a small optimization based on ScheduleDAGInstrs that does the following: 1. Find candidate nodes in the DAG, and speculatively modify the node (nodes). 2. After modification, try to compute the scheduled cycles of the region. 3. If the cycle number improves, go back to 1. to find the next candidate node. I am thinking using

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:48:18 -0700 Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > I'm considering writing more-detailed itineraries for some PowerPC > > CPUs that use the 'traditional' instruction grouping scheme. In > > essence, this means that multiple instructions will stall

Andy, Thanks for reply. I was able to trace the problem to the MI DAG dep constructor. See this: SU(0): %vreg1<def> = COPY %vreg10<kill>; IntRegs:%vreg1,%vreg10 # preds left : 0 # succs left : 0 # rdefs left : 1 Latency : 1 Depth : 0 Height : 0 SU(1): %vreg10<def> = LDriw %vreg9<kill>, 0;

Hey Everyone, I'd like to begin a project to rework the scheduler to address some problems we've discovered on this end. The goal is to get a more configurable/flexible scheduler while simplifying maintenance by separating policy from implementation to get independent and interchangeable parts. This is going to be challenging because we are still stuck on LLVM 2.9. We will be upgrading

sorry, Just noticed that the diagrams have 'Destroy' & 'SetUp' the wrong way around! Robert ________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] on behalf of Robert Lytton [robert at xmos.com] Sent: 21 August 2013 18:34 To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] PrescheduleNodesWithMultipleUses() causing failure in

Hey Guys! We had migrate asterisk 1.2 to 1.8 now big issue is queue system. Before we had 3 queues and we were using AgentCallbackLogin but now its quite difficult to use AddQueueMember. Is there any easy way to logged into multiple queue using AddQueueMember ? and restrict agent for specific queue ? -S -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hi, Matthias. >From the class hierarchy, ScheduleDAGMILive is also a ScheduleDAGMI. I am wondering if there will be any problem if we use subclass of ScheduleDAGMILive as post-RA scheduler? The best case is ScheduleDAGMILive just waste time on book-keeping register pressure, but I am not sure if we can still do those book-keeping after RA. Talk about post-RA scheduler, I see there is another

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I might just be doing something stupid, but when I do > > $ cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr/local/llvm-2.8 -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release .. > $ sudo make install > > I don't get the expected headers in >        /usr/local/llvm-2.8/include/llvm > > It is

Andy, I traced my problem to this point: In ScheduleDAGInstrs.cpp we have the following function: /// addVRegDefDeps - Add register output and data dependencies from this SUnit /// to instructions that occur later in the same scheduling region if they read /// from or write to the virtual register defined at OperIdx. /// /// TODO: Hoist loop induction variable increments. This has to be ///