similar to: Describing subreg load for vectors without using vector_insert

On Feb 20, 2008, at 7:36 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 20 February 2008 07:00:28 pm Evan Cheng wrote: > >>> In other words, after coalescing, should it be the case that >>> subregister >>> intervals contain at least all of the range information that was >>> contained >>> in any eliminated intervals when those eliminated intervals were

On Wednesday 20 February 2008 07:00:28 pm Evan Cheng wrote: > > In other words, after coalescing, should it be the case that > > subregister > > intervals contain at least all of the range information that was > > contained > > in any eliminated intervals when those eliminated intervals were > > coalesced > > to the subregister's superregister? >

On Feb 20, 2008, at 12:25 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 20 February 2008 14:14, David Greene wrote: > >> I discovered this through an assert I put into some of my own >> code. I want >> to know if that assert is bogus or if there's a bug here. > > A little more information: the assert checks that after coalescing > two nodes, > all subregister

On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > I am considering adding a new target independent codegen-only COPY instruction to our MachineInstr representation. It would be used to replace INSERT_SUBREG, EXTRACT_SUBREG, and virtual register copies after instruction selection. Selection DAG still needs {INSERT,EXTRACT}_SUBREG, but they would not appear as MachineInstrs any longer.

I am considering adding a new target independent codegen-only COPY instruction to our MachineInstr representation. It would be used to replace INSERT_SUBREG, EXTRACT_SUBREG, and virtual register copies after instruction selection. Selection DAG still needs {INSERT,EXTRACT}_SUBREG, but they would not appear as MachineInstrs any longer. The COPY instruction handles subreg operations with less

On Thursday 21 February 2008 01:23, Evan Cheng wrote: > > Also, LiveIntervalAnalysis doesn't do any subregister checks as > > far as I can tell. It's certainly not the case that subregister > > intervals contain all of the information their supperregister's > > interval contains. > > SimpleRegisterCoalescing::JoinIntervals(). When coalescing a physical

I'm working on a target based on the MIPS target, and when I copy f64 values into 32 bit registers for calling functions, I need the operation to work on a of 32 bit registers (because the language I'm translating to isn't actually mips). I've been looking at how to do this, but I haven't been able to figure it out. Since the Mips target code is still really close to mine,

On Wednesday 20 February 2008 14:14, David Greene wrote: > I discovered this through an assert I put into some of my own code. I want > to know if that assert is bogus or if there's a bug here. A little more information: the assert checks that after coalescing two nodes, all subregister live intervals for the register coaelsced to now interfere with whatever the eliminated live

Ryan, I don't think I fully understand the problem you described, but please see the comments below. Hope this helps you solve the problem. On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, ryan baird <ryanrbaird at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm working on a target based on the MIPS target, and when I copy f64 > values into 32 bit registers for calling functions, I need the operation to > work

I have a question about what is going on at line 754 of SimpleRegisterCoalescing.cpp. The comment says we are updating the live intervals for subregisters. This happens when we coalesce to a physical register. Now, I read that as, "merge in the range information from the eliminated live interval to the subregister live interval," but that appears to not be what happens. In my case,

I'm working on the post-regalloc dataflow engine I mentioned yesterday. Currently I only need to track register operands. A MachineOperand has both a getReg() and a getSubReg() interface. For a physical register operand, is getReg() guaranteed to be the "most super" register with getSubReg() providing the specific subregister information for the operand? If so then for my current

On Apr 18, 2013, at 9:45 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: > I'm working on the post-regalloc dataflow engine I mentioned yesterday. > Currently I only need to track register operands. > > A MachineOperand has both a getReg() and a getSubReg() interface. For a > physical register operand, is getReg() guaranteed to be the "most super" > register with getSubReg()

Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> writes: >> A MachineOperand has both a getReg() and a getSubReg() interface. >> For a physical register operand, is getReg() guaranteed to be the >> "most super" register with getSubReg() providing the specific >> subregister information for the operand? If so then for my current >> purposes it seems I

On Sep 5, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> wrote: > clearKillFlags seems a little "overkill" to me. In this case you could just simply transfer the value of the kill flag from the SrcReg to the DstReg. We are extending the live-range of SrcReg. I do not see how you could relate that to the kill flag of DstReg. Therefore, I still think, this is the

Hi, I'm facing a problem in my BE while trying to remove certain copies. Here is a code snippet which I would like to optimize %vreg1<def> = READF32r; vRRegs:%vreg1 %vreg2<def> = COPY %vreg1:rsub_h; iRSubRegs:%vreg2 vRRegs:%vreg1 %vreg3<def> = COPY %vreg1:rsub_l; iRSubRegs:%vreg3 vRRegs:%vreg1 This code produces subreg-to-subreg copies but I would like to have direct

On Wednesday 02 December 2009 17:24, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:08 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday 02 December 2009 16:51, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > >> > I'm working on some of the AVX insert/extract instructions.  They're >

On Mar 28, 2012, at 7:41 AM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm facing a problem in my BE while trying to remove certain copies. > Here is a code snippet which I would like to optimize > > %vreg1<def> = READF32r; vRRegs:%vreg1 > %vreg2<def> = COPY %vreg1:rsub_h; iRSubRegs:%vreg2 vRRegs:%vreg1 > %vreg3<def> = COPY

It appears that it's impossible to duplicate a node in the dag. For example, there is some code: b = a * a; // a is a global int A LD node is generated for A and it goes into both Operand 0 and 1 of the MUL node. The issue is I'm trying to match a pattern of: set dstReg:$dstD (OpNode (srcAType (load addr32:$srcA)), (srcBType (load addr32:$srcB))) so basically a mem, mem, reg

On Apr 19, 2013, at 7:18 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> writes: > >>> A MachineOperand has both a getReg() and a getSubReg() interface. >>> For a physical register operand, is getReg() guaranteed to be the >>> "most super" register with getSubReg() providing the specific >>> subregister

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 :