similar to: [LLVMdev] Removing dead code

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > I am working in a register allocator for LLVM, and I realized that, > after I perform register allocation, there is many move instructions that > are dead code, and can safely be removed. It is easy for the RA algorithm > to remove these instructions. It seems to me that the only instructions > with dead definitions

> > It seems to me that the only instructions > > with dead definitions that I should not remove are the calls. Is it true? > > I would like to know if a code like this below is safe, that is, besides > > call instructions, is there other instructions that must stay in the code > > even if their definitions are dead? > > > > MachineInstr * mi = iter; >

Hello, For my backend, I define and use a CC register similiarly to the EFLAGS register in X86 (I call it CCFLAGS). But if I make all arithmetic/logic instructions affect it ('let Defs = [CCFLAGS] in...' in InstrInfo.td) I run into // The only case we should have a dead physreg here without a killing or // instruction where we know it's dead is if it is live-in to the function

A physical register cannot be live across the block. So it must have a use in the block or it must be marked dead. From your dump, it looks like the CCFLAGS defs are not being marked dead. It's unclear where things went wrong, but you can step through LiveVariables to debug this. Evan On Jan 9, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Christian Sayer wrote: > Hello, > > For my backend, I define and

It seems to me that LLVM sub-register is not for the following hardware architecture. All instructions of a hardware are vector instructions. All registers contains 4 32-bit FP sub-registers. They are called r0.x, r0.y, r0.z, r0.w. Most instructions write more than one elements in this way: mul r0.xyw, r1, r2 add r0.z, r3, r4 sub r5, r0, r1 Notice that the four elements of r0 are written

Hi LLVMers, I have finally sorted out licensing issues and found some time, so I'm trying to port my PBQP register allocator to 2.4 in order to contribute it (if you want it). I've run into a bug that has me confused though. I'm currently failing the following assertion: llc: VirtRegMap.cpp:1733: void<unnamed>::LocalSpiller::RewriteMBB(llvm::MachineBasicBlock&,

On Sep 3, 2008, at 5:58 AM, Lang Hames wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > I have finally sorted out licensing issues and found some time, so I'm > trying to port my PBQP register allocator to 2.4 in order to Nice! We would definitely welcome your contribution. > > contribute it (if you want it). I've run into a bug that has me > confused though. > > I'm currently

Folks, I'm running into something which looks like a bug in linearscan allocator. Of course I can't be 100% sure it's not some unobvious mistake on my part, so I'd like to hear your opinion. First, I attach two files -- LLVM asm and the asm for my target. The problem with assembler is: on line 171 it uses register gr2, which is copied from gr6 above, on line 161. The only

Hi all, When compiling some programs using the Mips backend i'm getting this assert message on lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:227: "Range is not entirely in interval!" I don't know yet if it's something that is missing on the backend code or why the range to be removed it outside the interval, does anyone have any clue? A more detailed output is attached. The program i tried

I have two questions regarding MachineMemOperands and dependence information. Q1) I noticed that MachineMemOperands are lost when two LDRs are combined and a LDRD is generated in ARMPreAllocLoadStoreOpt:::RescheduleOps. (before optimization) %reg1033<def> = LDR %reg1030, %reg0, 4100, pred:14, pred:%reg0; mem:LD4[%uglygep10] %reg1054<def> = LDR %reg1030, %reg0, 4104, pred:14,

On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > I have two questions regarding MachineMemOperands and dependence information. > > Q1) I noticed that MachineMemOperands are lost when two LDRs are combined and a LDRD is generated in ARMPreAllocLoadStoreOpt:::RescheduleOps. > > (before optimization) > %reg1033<def> = LDR %reg1030, %reg0, 4100, pred:14, pred:%reg0;

On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > I've noticed this pattern happening with other operators aswell, but used xor in this example. As i said before, i tried with different register allocation orders, but it will produce always the same result. GCC is emitting longer code, but since LLVM is so nearer to the optimal code sequence i wanted to reach it. In LLVM, copies are

Sorry, this is the part in ARMLoadStoreOptimizer.cpp that creates a LDRD instruction. Ops.pop_back(); Ops.pop_back(); // Form the pair instruction. if (isLd) { MachineInstrBuilder MIB = BuildMI(*MBB, InsertPos, dl, TII->get(NewOpc)) .addReg(EvenReg, RegState::Define)

Evan, >A physical register cannot be live across the block. So it >must have a use in the block or it must be marked dead. From >your dump, it looks like the CCFLAGS defs are not being marked >dead. It's unclear where things went wrong, but you can step >through LiveVariables to debug this. Thanks for your response. I did quite some stepping through the llc passes, and it

Hello LLVM developers, I have a few questions regarding the passes that are run after instruction selection and before register allocation. I am writing a scheduling pass (modulo scheduling). Before I ask my questions, I will first try to explain the approach I am taking. - Currently, I am running the passes in the following order. (-debug-pass=Structure output) Remove unreachable machine

Suppose I need to align an address register to even boundary. Since address register can't be AND-ed with anything, I move the value into general purpose register, to "and" and then move it into address register. Unfortunately, the register allocator crashes. Here's machine code: %reg1030 = - %reg1027, 1 %reg1031 = move %reg1030 %reg1032 = + %reg1031,

While migrating my codebase from llvm-2.6 to llvm-2.7, I found a different behaviour in the register allocation. I have been able to reproduce it using the msp430 backend, with the 2.7 release as well as the svn head. For the msp430, the first four parameters of a function are passed thru registers. What I observe is that if those parameters are not used inside the function, those registers can

Hello, i've noticed a new possible missed optimization while testing more trivial code. This time it's not a with a xor but with a multiplication instruction and the example is little bit more involved. C code: typedef short t; t foo(t a, t b) { t a4 = a*b; return a4; } argument "a" is passed in R15:R14, argument "b" in R13:R12, the return value is stored in

I saw there is reference to dead def on registers in LLVM source code. I am not aware of this concept from the traditional course material. What are the properties of dead def? Cheers Thomson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150101/ea39d1e4/attachment.html>

On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 02:53 +0200, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > If you are using the local register allocator, please try switching to the fast allocator and report any bugs you find. > Tried it, and it seems to break quite a big chunk of our tests on SPU :) Before r103488 ("Mostly rewrite RegAllocFast") there was no problem. But with r103488, I get a: