similar to: [LLVMdev] Requiring LiveIntervals

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > One of my pass requires LiveIntervals to build the interference graph, Ok. > because LiveVariables do not provide an interface to iterate through > all viritual registers. Ok, you could add a method to LiveVariables that returns VirtRegInfo.size(). The virtual registers are defined by the range: [MRegisterInfo::FirstVirtualRegister,

On 20/09/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > because LiveVariables do not provide an interface to iterate through > > all viritual registers. > > Ok, you could add a method to LiveVariables that returns > VirtRegInfo.size(). The virtual registers are defined by the range: > [MRegisterInfo::FirstVirtualRegister, >

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > On 20/09/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: >>> because LiveVariables do not provide an interface to iterate through >>> all viritual registers. >> >> Ok, you could add a method to LiveVariables that returns >> VirtRegInfo.size(). The virtual registers are defined by the range: >>

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) {

Dear llvmers, I am trying to insert a move instruction where both source and destination registers are physical registers. How is the code for this? I tried this one here: void PhiDeconstruction_Fer::add_move ( MachineFunction & mf, MachineBasicBlock & mbb, unsigned

Hello. I am making a backend for a virtual machine. But it does assume infinite number of virtual registers unlike those of usual machines. In this case, how can I implement this? Would you mind telling me some tips? Thank you so much. Seung Jae Lee

Given a live interval LI, what's the right way to get the register class of the interval? I'm assuming that all LiveRange entries in the LiveInterval are consistent in that if allocated to a register they would all go in the same register class. Fair assumption? If I take the first LiveRange LR from LI, look up its instruction/operand at "start" and then look at its

> > Thank you Chris. I will try to implement the TwoAddress pass to run on > > machine code. Why it has not been originally implemented to run on > > machine code? > > I'm not sure what you mean. It definitely does run on machine code. I was thinking that it only transformed instructions with virtual registers because of this code in the TwoAddressInstructionPass.cpp:

On Jul 11, 2007, at 11:39 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 11 July 2007 12:41, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > >> I think the coalescer should be flexible enough to be run >> independent of >> the register allocator. For example, you may want to expose the >> copies >> induced by transforming out of SSA to the scheduler. If the >> scheduler is

How do I get the TargetRegisterClass for a physical register? SSARegMap::getRegClass only works for virtual registers. -Dave

Hi, In PR2193 LiveVariables runs out of memory on a 512M limit, after processing 11557 basicblocks. VirtRegInfo has ~180000 entries with ~700 bytes each. If I give it more memory (1.5G) it runs out of memory in LiveInterval. I don't see any easy solution to reduce memory usage, but should we optimize such a huge function at once? If the function is over some reasonable limit (5k

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > MachineBasicBlock::iterator iter = mbb.getFirstTerminator(); > const TargetRegisterClass *rc = mf.getSSARegMap()->getRegClass(dst); > const MRegisterInfo * reg_info = mf.getTarget().getRegisterInfo(); > reg_info->copyRegToReg(mbb, iter, dst, src, rc); > } > > But the getRegClass method seems to

On 08/09/05, Alkis Evlogimenos <evlogimenos at gmail.com> wrote: > to those coalesced registers, it is logical that noone will ever query > the liveness of those registers (unless there is a bug somewhere in the Indeed the coalesced registers may logically not be queried since they do not appear in any operand list of the machine code, but the VarInfo::DefInst in VirtRegInfo of the

On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 18:24 +0800, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > 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

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: >>> Thank you Chris. I will try to implement the TwoAddress pass to run on >>> machine code. Why it has not been originally implemented to run on >>> machine code? >> >> I'm not sure what you mean. It definitely does run on machine code. > > I was thinking that it only transformed

OK, details: I run RH8 (gcc 3.2.something), RH9 (gcc 3.2.2-5) and Fedora. Problems are the same across all setups. Hardware is Athlon 1600+ and half a giga RAM. Runs fail with an assertion when the linear scan allocator is enabled, but runs without problems otherwise. On RH9 (the system I have access to while generating this email) I have the following details: > 1) The LLVM assembly

On Apr 13, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Török Edwin wrote: > Hi, > > In PR2193 LiveVariables runs out of memory on a 512M limit, after > processing 11557 basicblocks. > VirtRegInfo has ~180000 entries with ~700 bytes each. > If I give it more memory (1.5G) it runs out of memory in LiveInterval. Some of the information kept by LiveVariables are somewhat redundant and can be removed. I

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

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

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > 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). This code isn't actually replacing the virtual register with a physreg. As you noticed, it