similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: PowerPC tail call optimization patch

On Apr 16, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Hello Dale, > > this is an updated version of the tail call optimization patch for > powerpc. could you have a look at it? > > i added code to support ppc64 (untested, will try to get access to > ppc64 on a friend's machine). > incorporated evan's formatting suggestions. ;) > > will run another round

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > More nitpicks: > ... > No need for else here. :-) Done > SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; > > Just change last statement to > int SPDiff = (int)... Done > > +bool > +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, > +

On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > wrote: >> More nitpicks: >> ... >> No need for else here. :-) > Done >> SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; >> >> Just change last statement to >> int SPDiff = (int)... > Done >>

For my target, I handle incoming memory arguments by creating a store to memory (in LowerCall, [1]), then creating a fixed object on the stack and loading from it (in LowerFormalArguments[2]). This approach was based on MSP430. I now have the problem that the resulting loads in my output assembly are done assuming that the call stack looks something like: ------ MemArg ------ MemArg ------

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:31:10PM -0800, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I did a little experiment modifying LLVM to be able to use alias- > > analysis > > information in scheduling so that independent memory operations may be > > reordered. > > I am not sure if it is a good idea to

On Dec 19, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Hello, > > I did a little experiment modifying LLVM to be able to use alias- > analysis > information in scheduling so that independent memory operations may be > reordered. I am not sure if it is a good idea to do this at scheduling time. LLVM explicitly models control flows dependencies as chain operands. This eliminated

Hello, I did a little experiment modifying LLVM to be able to use alias-analysis information in scheduling so that independent memory operations may be reordered. Attached is a patch which implements this. I copied some routines from DAGCombiner.cpp for using SDOperands with alias queries; it should probably be factored out somewhere so the code can be shared. I reorganized

Hi, Is it possible to add a spill code (a pair of store /load ) to the machinecode in a pass before the instruction emitter? If so, how can I calculate the address (offset to the sp) for the spill store/load instructions? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Here is a patch to improve argument lowering for tail calls. Before this patch all outgoing arguments were move to the stack slot where they would go on a normal function call and from there moved back to the tail call stack slot to prevent overwriting of values. After this patch only arguments that source from callers arguments (formal_arguments) are lowered this way. I moved some code

Hello everybody, hi Evan, this patch changes the lowering of arguments for tail call optimized calls. Before arguments that could be overwritten by each other were explicitly lowered to a stack slot, not giving the register allocator a chance to optimize. Now a sequence of copyto/copyfrom virtual registers ensures that arguments are loaded in (virtual) registers before they are lowered to the

Full_Name: Bill Simpson Version: 65.1 OS: Linux Redhat 6.1 Submission from: (NULL) (193.62.250.209) Try this: #default plot symbols and lettering are too small, need to scale up par(cex=2,mex=.7) par(mar=c(5,5,1,1)) spdiff<-c(1,2,3,4,5) dpdet<-c(1,2,3,4,5)/10 dpsp<-c(2,3,4,5,6)/10 dpdir<-c(2,4,6,8,10)/10 plot(spdiff,dpdet,pch=15,ylim=c(0,max(dpdet,dpsp,dpdir)),xlab="Speed

Hi, How do "Pat" operands get matched? I am trying to follow the example given in http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#selectiondag-process In the latest trunk of ppcintrinfo.td following pattern is defined: def : Pat<(pre_store i32:$rS, iPTR:$ptrreg, iaddroff:$ptroff), (STWU $rS, iaddroff:$ptroff, $ptrreg)>; I understand that input operand list i.e. ins of

On 7 April 2013 14:54, Sam Parker <S.Parker3 at lboro.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Anitha, > > memri is just describing that the address contains two components, an > immediate and a register, and how to handle them in the instruction printer. > The STWU expects a memri operand, and that is what is passed from the Pat. > My confusion is how operands of STWU from "Pat

Hi Anitha, memri is just describing that the address contains two components, an immediate and a register, and how to handle them in the instruction printer. The STWU expects a memri operand, and that is what is passed from the Pat. Hope that helps, Sam On 07/04/2013 10:19, Anitha B Gollamudi wrote: > Hi, > > > How do "Pat" operands get matched? I am trying to follow

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Villmow, Micah >> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:56 PM >> To: 'Eli Friedman' >> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List >> Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] RFC: Supporting different sized address space >> arithmetic >>

Segfault in EE->getPointerToFunction. I think it's blown the stack, gdb reports a never ending backtrace (below). I generate llvm assembly and parse/verify OK. Attached is the assembly. It is the smallest example generated that causes the segfault. If this EE uses a recursive function (??), it seems an inherent limitation in how big llvm functions can be. Simon. gdb backtrace: #0

Hi, I am trying to write a LowerCALL() function for my (custom) target ISA. All I need to do is map a CALL instruction directly onto an SDNode that takes an equal number of arguments (very much alike intrinsics, except that these are custom to my target.) I do not need to implement any call sequences, stack frames etc. I get the following assertion failure: llc: LegalizeDAG.cpp:834:

On 24 Sep 2007, at 09:18, Evan Cheng wrote: > +; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=x86 -mattr=+sse2 -stats -info- > output-file - | grep asm-printer | grep 9 > +; change preceeding line form ... | grep 8 to ..| grep 9 since > +; with new fastcc has std call semantics causing a stack adjustment > +; after the function call > > Not sure if I understand this. Can you illustrate

Hi all, I am almost ready for the last step with landing my long-standing patch. I have converted (almost) all low-level interface users of CallInst to respective high-level interfaces. What remains is a handful of hunks to flip the switch. But before I do the final commit I'd like to coerce all external users to code against the high-level interface too. This will (almost, but see below)

Evan Cheng wrote: > I think the easiest thing for you to do is to define a separate CALL > instruction with a different set of Defs. This instruction should > only be selected when the predicate isMacho is true. Also update > PPCRegisterInfo.cpp getCalleeSavedRegs() to return a different list > when subtarget->isMachoABI() is true. > Alright, thx Evan, that's