similar to: [LLVMdev] Possible VirtRegMap Bug

On May 27, 2008, at 5:36 PM, David Greene wrote: > I've been playing around with spillers and found that the > SimpleSpiller fails > badly on a particular code. > > The problem arises because SimpleSpiller does the test > VRM.isAssignedReg(virtReg) which is implemented as: > > 00183 bool isAssignedReg(unsigned virtReg) const { > 00184 if

Hey all, I've found a bug in either the PBQP register allocator or in VirtRegRewriter. I'm observing this assertion in VirtRegRewriter::rewrite() fail: unsigned VirtReg = MO.getReg(); unsigned PhysReg = VRM->getPhys(VirtReg); ... assert(!MRI->isReserved(PhysReg) && "Reserved register assignment"); Indeed there is a case where

On Friday 30 May 2008 15:13, Evan Cheng wrote: > No, every vr is assigned a physical register. It needs to know how > what physical register to reload it, for example. Looks like > SimpleSpiller has bit-rotted. There really isn't a good reason to fix > it. Unless you want to use it, I'll just remove it. No, don't remove it! It's a valuable debugging tool. I've

Hi again, 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>: > > > On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Roman Levenstein <romix.llvm at googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: >>> >>> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: >>> >>>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1:

Hi all, Is anyone still using SimpleRewriter (formerly known as SimpleSpiller)? A quick check with the test suite suggests that it's badly broken. If it's not being used I'd like to remove it as part of my tidy-up of the register allocator. - Lang.

I vote for execution of SimpleRewriter. Evan On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Lang Hames wrote: > Hi all, > > Is anyone still using SimpleRewriter (formerly known as > SimpleSpiller)? A quick check with the test suite suggests that it's > badly broken. If it's not being used I'd like to remove it as part of > my tidy-up of the register allocator. > > - Lang. >

On Jun 3, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > I vote for execution of SimpleRewriter. Yeah, go ahead and axe it: Off with its head! -Chris > > > Evan > > On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Lang Hames wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Is anyone still using SimpleRewriter (formerly known as >> SimpleSpiller)? A quick check with the test suite suggests that it's

Thanks for all the hints Jakob, I've added the following piece of code after the spill code handling inside selectOrSplit() (ignoring some control logic): for (LiveIntervals::const_iterator I = LIS->begin(), E = LIS->end(); I != E; ++I) { unsigned VirtReg = I->first; if ((TargetRegisterInfo::isVirtualRegister(VirtReg)) && (VRM->getPhys(VirtReg)

lib/CodeGen/RegAllocLocal.cpp:38: warning: 'NumFolded' defined but not used This has been introduced because of r46821. However, maybe removing just the variable isn't enought, because the comments in the section that got modified by 46821 are not optimal: if (PhysReg) { // Register is available, allocate it! assignVirtToPhysReg(VirtReg, PhysReg); } else { // No

Hi, I think I've found a bug in this method. I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: VirtUseOps.insert(VirtUseOps.begin(), MI.getNumOperands()); MI.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreateReg(VirtReg,

I'm having no luck getting my register allocator to work. I'm trying to do it using the "indirect" approach; i.e., using a VirtRegMap, with calls to assignVirt2Phys, assignVirt2StackSlot, etc. and a call to a "spiller" at the end. As a warm-up exercise (before implementing register allocation via graph coloring) I'm trying to implement a very simple scheme in

Hi Susan, Jakob just pointed me to 'MachineOperand::substPhysReg(unsigned preg, const TargetRegisterInfo& TRI)'. That substitutes the given physreg for a virtreg operand, taking the subregister index into account. That is what my examples have been doing manually. Using substPhysReg would allow you to tidy the Gcra code up slightly. - Lang. On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Lang

On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Roman Levenstein <romix.llvm at googlemail.com > wrote: > 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: >> >> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: >> >>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: >>> Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) >>> %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0,

On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > Thanks for all the hints Jakob, I've added the following piece of code after the spill code handling inside selectOrSplit() (ignoring some control logic): > > for (LiveIntervals::const_iterator I = LIS->begin(), E = LIS->end(); I != E; > ++I) > { > unsigned VirtReg = I->first; > if

On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > Yes, I want the register to be allocatable when there are no stack frames used in the function so it can be used for other purposes. In fact, I looked at how other backends solve this problem, but they are all too conservative by always reserving the register which in my case it is not a good solution because of the performance impact of not

On Oct 7, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote: > Hi, > > I think I've found a bug in this method. > > I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. > > For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: > >

Thanks Lang, I'll try substPhysReg. I did try your latest code, and although it made the assembler errors go away, now some of my tests produce bad output when executed. I need to look into that some more... (I did change my "usedPregSet" to be ALL pregs used in the whole function, not just those in the current instruction, so the problem should not be the erroneous

Yes, I want the register to be allocatable when there are no stack frames used in the function so it can be used for other purposes. In fact, I looked at how other backends solve this problem, but they are all too conservative by always reserving the register which in my case it is not a good solution because of the performance impact of not having this register available. I find very interesting

2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: > > On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > >> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: >> Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) >> %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0, %reg0 >> *** STR %LR<kill>, %R0<kill>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0, Mem:ST(4,4) >> [0x8fc2d68 + 0]

On Sep 10, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > I've got a good test case that I'm working on at the moment. I noticed something odd though: Is '0' a valid register unit? I'm seeing a LiveInterval with li->reg == 0 show up, which previously wasn't valid. We have a few checks around the place to disregard the '0' physreg - could