similar to: [LLVMdev] viewGraph

Oh, I tried that, in my previous email, I meant to write: this->DAG.viewGragh() DAG.viewGragh() sorry for the typo in my email... It does not complain about not finding DAG, it complains about not finding viewGragh() in DAG. A. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Lattner Sent: Wednesday, September 26,

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > I am trying to use the viewGraph() method of SelectionDAG, of course I > installed graghviz, nuked my build directory, reconfigured and rebuilt > the project. However, gdb does not consistently recognize > SelectionDAG::viewgraph(), some times it finds it and some times it says > that llvm::SelectionDAG does not have

> Oh, I tried that, in my previous email, I meant to write: > this->DAG.viewGragh() > DAG.viewGragh() > sorry for the typo in my email... > It does not complain about not finding DAG, it complains about not > finding viewGragh() in DAG. Gragh or Graph. Don't you mean viewGraph() ? Aaron

Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant simplification. There are still some issues with this patch, but does the approach look sane? -Eli -------------- next part -------------- Index: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorOps.cpp

Dear LLVM, I'm trying to understand why the attached IR code works for x86_64 target and fails for nvptx64, because of unimplemented expand during the target lowering. Any ideas? Just change the target triple to x86_64-unknown-unknown, and the same IR code could we successfully codegen-ed for x86_64. Thanks, - Dima. dmikushin at dmikushin-desktop:~/Desktop$ gdb ~/sandbox/bin/llc GNU gdb

On Oct 2, 2008, at 9:37 AM, David Greene wrote: > I'm debugging some X86 patterns and I want to understand the debug > dumps from > isel better. > > Here's some example output: > > 0x391bc40: i64,ch = load 0x3922c50, 0x391b8d0, 0x38dc530 > <0x39053e0:0> <sext > i32> alignment=4 srcLineNum= 10 > 0x3922c50: <multiple use> >

On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 08:53 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Oct 2, 2008, at 2:01 AM, sanjiv gupta wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> So you have a i16 register

I believe this patch has broken a PPC app that I am tracking. Here is a reduced test case. Reproduce with llc -mattr=+Altivec -mcpu=g5. The backtrace looks like this: #0 0x9333ae42 in __kill () #1 0x9333ae34 in kill$UNIX2003 () #2 0x933ad23a in raise () #3 0x933b9679 in abort () #4 0x933ae3db in __assert_rtn () #5 0x0008bd8f in llvm::MVT::getVectorElementType (this=0xbfffdda4) at

Hi, The attached patch implements sub.ovf/mul.ovf intrinsics similarly to the recently added add.ovf intrinsics. These are useful for implementing some vm instructions like sub.ovf/mul.ovf in .NET IL efficiently. sub.ovf is supported in target independent lowering and on x86, while mul.ovf is only supported in the x86 backend. Please review

Index: llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeDAG.cpp =================================================================== --- llvm.orig/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeDAG.cpp 2007-07-14 16:59:23.000000000 +0200 +++ llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeDAG.cpp 2007-07-14 16:59:52.000000000 +0200 @@ -696,7 +696,7 @@ } } break; - case ISD::EH_RETURN: + case ISD::EH_RETURN: {

I am getting an assert on a bad legalization. Assertion failed: Result.getValueType() == Op.getValueType() && "Bad legalization!", file ..\..\lib\CodeGen\SelectionDAG\LegalizeDAG.cpp, line 3976 Can someone explain to me what this means in term of backend code generation, how it might be occurring, and possible ways to fix this? I don't see how the value type of an

Things are still broken. Unfortunately llvm test suite does not contain enough vector code to fully test this. Can you revert the patch first? Evan On Feb 24, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Scott Michel wrote: > Evan: > > I did not encounter this back trace before I committed the newest > BuildVectorSDNode patch, which removed all class instance members > and passes results back via

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector > operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from > LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant > simplification.  There are still some issues with this patch, but does > the approach

Hi, I tried to view the CFG when debugging a pass by "gdb opt," but the gdb does not have DAG.viewGraph function, which is indicated at http://www.llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#ViewGraph. Could anyone tell me how to make DAG* functions available in gdb? Thanks in advance. Lu

Hi all, I need to look at the CFG of a loop during debugging. However the containing function is very large, so it is rather difficult to use the CFG of the complete function. I tried using the ViewGraph method, but the compiler kept complaining about undefined symbols related to GraphTraits or DOTGraphTraits. Is there any example that I could look at to find out, what exactly I need to call

On Jul 3, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >> This seems to break the convention. It should be the responsibility >> of the caller to further legalize the results. >> >> Evan > That makes sense. In that case I believe > SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeSetCCOperands > should be legalizing the result. The description of this function > says

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jul 3, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > >>> This seems to break the convention. It should be the responsibility >>> of the caller to further legalize the results. >>> >>> Evan >>> >> That makes sense. In that case I believe >> SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeSetCCOperands >> should be

> >>>> You can try just marking all i16 operations, other than load and > >>>> store, as "expand". Would that work? > >>> > >>> Won't work; LLVM expects at least some basic operations, like add, > >>> to > >>> be legal in legal register types. > >> > >> That sounds like a bug, not a

On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman > <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector >> >> operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from >> >> LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant

Evan: I work on reverting it, although, when I tried yesterday, it wasn't particularly clean (lots of rejected patches, presumably due to intervening commits.) Are you still getting the backtrace or is this just a case of incorrectly generated code? -scooter On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com> wrote: > Things are still broken. Unfortunately llvm