similar to: [LLVMdev] Codegen/Register allocation question.

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

> > 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; >

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

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

Dear guys, 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 that I should not remove are the calls. Is it true? I would like to know

For the x86-64 target, I tried compiling a simple hello world. I don't understand the live interval information. Here's the machine instructions as dumped by LiveIntervalAnalysis: ********** MACHINEINSTRS ********** file hello.c line 3 b: 0 FNSTCW16m <fi#0>, 1, %NOREG, 0 FNSTCW16m <fi#0> 1 %mreg(0) 0 4 MOV8mi <fi#0>, 1, %NOREG, 1, 2 MOV8mi <fi#0> 1 %mreg(0) 1 2 8

Evan, thanks for responding so quickly. On Tuesday 26 June 2007 14:11, Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:20 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > > 28 %AL<dead> = MOV8rr %reg1024<kill>, %EAX<imp-def> > > MOV8rr %mreg(2)<d> %reg1024 %mreg(17)<d> > > 32 CALL64pcrel32 <ga:printf>, %RDI<kill>, %RAX<imp-def>, %RCX<imp- > >

On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:20 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > > 28 %AL<dead> = MOV8rr %reg1024<kill>, %EAX<imp-def> > MOV8rr %mreg(2)<d> %reg1024 %mreg(17)<d> > 32 CALL64pcrel32 <ga:printf>, %RDI<kill>, %RAX<imp-def>, %RCX<imp- > def,dead>, > %RDX<imp-def,dead>, %RSI<imp-def,dead>, %RDI<imp-def,dead>, >

On Jun 26, 2007, at 12:57 PM, David Greene wrote: > Evan, thanks for responding so quickly. > > On Tuesday 26 June 2007 14:11, Evan Cheng wrote: >> On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:20 AM, David A. Greene wrote: >>> 28 %AL<dead> = MOV8rr %reg1024<kill>, %EAX<imp-def> >>> MOV8rr %mreg(2)<d> %reg1024 %mreg(17)<d> >>> 32 CALL64pcrel32

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, 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

Chris Lattner wrote: > > Thanks, this works! I don't yet understand why spill code is needed there > > at all, but I'll return to that when I have branches working correctly. > > I'm not sure either. Can you send the code before and after register > allocation? Attached. > You might also try -regalloc=linearscan, as the default > allocator is, uhhh,

Dear guys, I am in need of more of your help. I'm implementing a register allocator, and I am having problems to make it produce correct code. Consider this program here: int main(int argc, char ** argv) { int i, j, sum; i = argv[0][0]; j = argv[0][1]; sum = (i + j) * j; printf("Sum = %d\n", sum); } that maps to this llvm bytecode: entry (0xa785590, LLVM

On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Alex wrote: > 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

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:

My two-address target machine has sign-extension instructions to extend i8->i32 and i16->i32. When I compile this simple program: int sext (unsigned a, unsigned b, int c) { return (signed char) a + (signed short) b + c; } I get this IR: define i32 @sext(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %c) nounwind readnone { entry: %conv = trunc i32 %a to i8 ; <i8>

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: > > > Thanks, this works! I don't yet understand why spill code is needed there > > > at all, but I'll return to that when I have branches working correctly. > > > > I'm not sure either. Can you send the code before and after register > > allocation? > > Attached. Okay, yeah

I just changed the default register allocator for -O0 builds to the fast allocator. This means that the local register allocator is not used anymore, and since it does more or less the same as the fast allocator, there is no reason to keep it around. I am going to delete it in a week or two. If you are using the local register allocator, please try switching to the fast allocator and report any

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

Chris Lattner wrote: > > > I'm not sure either. Can you send the code before and after register > > > allocation? > > > > Attached. > > Okay, yeah the spill code looks right. The local allocator can't keep > virtual registers in physical registers across basic blocks. As such, the > vregs are spilled at the end of the entry block and then