similar to: [LLVMdev] Re: dependence analyzer for machine code?

why there is no general dependency analysis for the "machin code"? perhaps it's because the instruction scheduling is only implemented for sparcv9? i am going to implement a dependency analysis pass for machine code block. the result will be returned in a boost graph (http://www.boost.org/libs/graph/doc/table_of_contents.html). just to check if it has already been implemented. it

On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 14:45 +0800, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > why there is no general dependency analysis for the "machin code"? > perhaps it's because the instruction scheduling is only implemented > for sparcv9? Most backends use the SelectionDAG infastructure to do this kind of thing. (Simplifying things a bit) Each basic block is selected to a DAG based IR. Then

On Sep 5, 2005, at 10:21 AM, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 14:45 +0800, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > >> why there is no general dependency analysis for the "machin code"? >> perhaps it's because the instruction scheduling is only implemented >> for sparcv9? >> > > Most backends use the SelectionDAG infastructure to do this kind of >

Hi, DSP-C is an extension to ISO C to support specific hardware features in DSP, e.g. fixed-point typer, memory spaces and circular pointers. It's generic for different DSP's. - http://www.dsp-c.org How difficult is it to extending the llvm-gcc for this extension? Any document like "hitchhiker's guide to extend the GCC fronted" ? (just like the guide for adding

On 08/09/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > This code isn't actually replacing the virtual register with a physreg. Then why changing its optype? It makes the assertion fails: MachineOperand& MO = inst.getOperand(n); if (MRegisterInfo::isVirtualRegister(MO.getReg())) { assert(MachineOperand::MO_VirtualRegister == MO.getType()); ... } Is that alright? Some

Didn't SparcV9 backend implement list scheduling? 2005/12/16, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, thean kiat sew wrote: > > I am planning to use list scheduling on LLVM instructions. > > Any recommendation on how to start ? As in which codes in LLVM that I need > > to look at. > > We don't currently have a list scheduler in the

A question about how the memory of object in LLVM are managed. I dived in some source files but still don't have any idea how the memory of MachineInstr object are managed. It doesn't look like reference counting. I'm writing an instruction scheudling code, the new order of MachineInstr* in a MachineBasicBlock is stored in a "schedule". All MachineInstr* in

The automated tests seems not run periodically. Some builds are even broken (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/X86-niobe/), and some failed (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/SparcV9/). Will there be another automated test be scheduled before the next release? On 11/10/05, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Frequently releasing software can be a good thing. Especially

I want to enumerate all the operands of a machine instruction, but the iterator seems to skip everything except virtual registers. Is this by design? MachineInstr.h <code> template<class MITy, class VTy> class ValOpIterator : public forward_iterator<VTy, ptrdiff_t> { void skipToNextVal() { while (i < MI->getNumOperands() && !(

On 08/09/05, Alkis Evlogimenos <evlogimenos at gmail.com> wrote: > representative register (found using a union find algorithm). Note that > the representative register could be a real register if we ever joined > an interval of a real register with one of a virtual register (and this > real register will be the representative register of the set of > intervals joined

The BGL (Boost Graph Library) defines tie(), which is exactly what the tie() defined in STLExtras.h. The header files of GBL use boost::tie(), and other boost libraries use boost::tie() too. How to resolve the ambiguity for compiler? -- Tzu-Chien Chiu, 3D Graphics Hardware Architect <URL:http://www.csie.nctu.edu.tw/~jwchiu>

2005/7/26, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: > Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > > The same problem exists when there are two types of costant registers, > > floating point and integer, and each is declared 'packed' ([4xfloat] > > and [4xint]). The instruction selector doesn't know which instruction > > it should produce because the newly defined MVT type

I though LiveVariables may be invalidated by LiveIntervals, but it's declared not: void LiveIntervals::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addPreserved<LiveVariables>(); AU.addRequired<LiveVariables>(); ... LiveInterval may coalesce virtual registers and remove identity moves instructions: bool LiveIntervals::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &fn) {

I don't understand the following code snippet in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp. Why changing the type of the opreand from a virtual register to a machine register? The register number (reg) is still a virtual register index (>1024). bool LiveIntervals::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &fn) { // perform a final pass over the instructions and compute spill // weights, coalesce

I am not sure if my problem is similar to: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2003-December/000715.html It seems that the constructor of the static global pass object isn't called: lib/CodeGen/DependenceAnalyzer.cpp: static RegisterAnalysis<DependenceAnalyzer> X("depana", "Dependence Analysis"); I traced into struct RegisterAnalysis ctor, but my pass

Sorry. It's kinda embarrassing but I don't know how to follow a thread. As you can see: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2005-September/thread.html My follow-up posts are not threaded. What is the subject I should use to continue a pre-existing thread? dependence analyzer for machine code? Re: dependence analyzer for machine code? [LLVMdev] Re: dependence analyzer for machine

On 22/09/05, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Couldn't you state the explicit namespaces. So not using "using > namespace llvm" and instead prefix all calls with "llvm::"? The header files in boost do not use fully-qualified tie(). I probably should not modify them. But my .cpp file #include them. I hope I could "using namespace" boost

http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/~gaeke/llvm-tv File Not Found? -- Tzu-Chien Chiu, 3D Graphics Hardware Architect <URL:http://www.csie.nctu.edu.tw/~jwchiu>

2005/12/13, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: > > For example, this a code snippet for the file generated by the TableGen tool: > ... > > Somewhere in my code, I have to write: > > unsigned opcode = MI->getOpcode(); // MachineInstr* > > if (CMPfaaaa == opcode || > > CMPfaaar == opcode || > > CMPfaara == opcode || > > ...

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