similar to: [LLVMdev] Computing Register Pressure

We have run an experiment in which we set all physical register limits to zero. The purpose of this experiment was estimating the potential impact of getting complete liveness info. The results of this experiment were better than the results that we got using the real physical limits (the total number of spills in CPU2006 was reduced), but the difference was not substantial. We took this as an

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > That means you cannot use the code from RegisterPressure.{cpp|h} to compute this. The other liveness analysis we have in llvm codegen is LiveIntervals (LiveItnervalAnalysis) which gives you a list of liveness segments of a given vreg (the same representation is used in most linear scan allocators even

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 03:36, John Brawn <John.Brawn at arm.com> wrote: > > > Could you please point out what am I doing wrong in the patch ? > > It's because you're getting the function name by doing > callee->getName().str().c_str() > The str() call generates a temporary copy of the name which ceases to exist outside of this expression > causing the

> On Oct 13, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > Yes, I've run into the problem myself that the Pending queue isn't even checked with the tryCandidate() logic and so takes priority over all other scheduling decisions. > > I personally would be open to changes in this area. To start the brainstorming I could imagine that we move nodes

If I'm understanding what's going on in this test correctly, what's happening is: * ARMTargetLowering::LowerCall prefers indirect calls when a function is called at least 3 times in minsize * In thumb 1 (without -fno-omit-frame-pointer) we have effectively only 3 callee-saved registers (r4-r6) * The function has three arguments, so those three plus the register we need to hold the

Hello, In a previous email, Matthias mentioned that register pressure estimates in the machine scheduler are not absolute; they only account for the registers that are used in the block.I assume that he meant that registers that are live-through (both live-in and live-out) are not accounted for in register pressure calculations. If a register is either live-in or live-out but not both, it must be

Hi, Compiling attached test-case, which is reduced version of of uECC_shared_secret from tinycrypt library [1], with --target=arm-linux-gnueabi -march=armv6-m -Oz -S results in reloading of register holding function's address before every call to blx: ldr r3, .LCPI0_0 blx r3 mov r0, r6 mov r1, r5 mov r2, r4 ldr r3,

Hi, I have attached WIP patch for adding foldMemoryOperand to Thumb1InstrInfo. For the following case: void f(int x, int y, int z) { void bar(int, int, int); bar(x, y, z); bar(x, z, y); bar(y, x, z); bar(y, y, x); } it calls foldMemoryOperand twice, and thus converts two calls from blx to bl. callMI->dump() shows the function name "bar" correctly, however in generated

Hi, We are working on a research project whose objective is developing a pre-allocation scheduling algorithm that achieves the optimal balance between exploiting ILP (hiding latencies) and minimizing register pressure.  A prototype of our algorithm has been implemented and integrated into an experimental version of LLVM 2.9. Our algorithm is based on a combinatorial optimization approach, which

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Vijayaraghavan Murali <m.vijay at nus.edu.sg> wrote: > I just wish to know if other than manually comparing the llc generated > code with the source program, is there any other way of knowing which > variables in the program are mapped to which registers? I was not able > to find any suitable option for the same, so I'm wondering if there is a

Hi, I've been looking at the Machine Scheduler on Power PC. I am looking only at the pre-RA machine scheduler and I am running it in the default bi-directional mode (so, both top down and bottom up queues are considered). I've come across an example where the scheduler picks a poor ordering for the instructions which results in very high register pressure which results in spills.

On Aug 15, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Ghassan Shobaki wrote: > One factor that is causing our current register pressure estimate to be off is not being able to properly account for live-in and live-out registers (both virtual and physical). As far as we can tell, LLVM represents live-in regs with CopyFromReg instrs and live-out regs with CopyToReg instrs. However, it looks that in a given basic block,

Thank you for the answers, Jakob! That's really informative for someone who is still new to LLVM like me. Please see my responses below. -Ghassan  ________________________________ From: Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> To: Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Tuesday, August 16,

I am working on a project where we are integrating an existing pre-RA scheduler into LLVM and we are trying to match our peak register pressure values with the machine instruction schedulers values while using X86. I am finding some mismatches in test cases like the one attached. The registers "AH" and "AL" are live-out but not live-in and I don't see that they are defined

Hi Xing, The register pressure sets are basically concepts that tells you how may variables can live in register at the same time. This information is available for two different level of abstraction: per register class and per register unit. The register unit is the basic entity we use to represent a register. Tablegen generates all of that for you, so you do not need to worry about them.

I thought about a little bit more, I think adding Register pressure control in your patch or PRE may be the only choice. Because at least for this case I am looking at, what your patch did is created more relatively complex long live range, rematerialization is not smart enough to undo your change or at least without a lot of work, coalescing only create even longer live range not shorter,

Hi all, I am analyzing auto inc/dec optimization on ARM. On some loops, I noticed aggressive post increment is resulting in poor code due to increased register pressure. I was wondering if there is a way to estimate register pressure during DAG Combiner. I am trying to come up with some heuristic based on # of DAG nodes, # of live ins and live outs, # of machine registers etc. Any suggestions?

Can someone explain the theory behind the spillers in VirtRegMap.cpp? It seems as though the spillers do triple duty: - Insert load/store operations and/or fold instructions as necessary to carry out spills - Rewrite the spilled virtual registers to use machine registers (mapping given by the caller in the VRM). - Rewrite machine code to change virtual registers to physical registers

Hi all, Currently in the llvm middle-end, we disable some optimizations because we worry about the register pressure, (e.g. GVNHoist and ArgumentPromotion). However, in the architecture that are register-rich, e.g. FPGAs, we do not need to worry about the register pressure at all. For these architecures, we may want to optimization the LLVM IR without worrying about the register pressure. I

Hello, why LLVM does not define physical register limits for MIPS by overriding the TargetRegisterInfo::getRegPressureLimit function the way it’s done for X86 in x86RegisterInfo.cpp and ARM. Thanks in advance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120818/a8e4f353/attachment.html>