similar to: [LLVMdev] Stack overflow in Legalize Op

Are you running with restricted stack size, e.g. in a pthread process? Evan On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:16 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I’m hitting an issue where legalizeOp is overflowing the stack. Are > there any recommended ways of getting around this? > > The bitcode that causes this issue is attached. > > Thanks, > Micah Villmow > Systems Engineer > Advanced

This isn't running in a child process, but this is a win32 machine. The problem I'm having is LegalizeOp is recursively calling itself 6 times, followed by 3 calls to ExpandEXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT, with each LegalizeOp pushing 20KBof data onto the stack and Expand pushing 800B of data on the stack. So that is 9 function calls pushing ~140KB of data onto the stack. This set of 9 function

It seems that LLVM is converting all the 16 bit ints into 32 bit ints. Is there a way I can tell LLVM that 16 bit ints are valid and legal and not to do any conversions on them? Thanks, Micah Villmow Systems Engineer Advanced Technology & Performance Advanced Micro Devices Inc. S1-609 One AMD Place Sunnyvale, CA. 94085 P: 408-749-3966 -------------- next part

How do I match against this instruction? 01ABDA58: i64,ch = load 01ABD948, 01ABD8C0, 01AB1350 <null:0> This is the first time I've seen NULL in the memory operand location. Any idea on how this could be mapped with tablegen correctly? Thanks, Micah Villmow Systems Engineer Advanced Technology & Performance Advanced Micro Devices Inc. S1-609 One AMD Place Sunnyvale,

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? > I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would > mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction > and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you > anticipating something more

Hi I am running into a legalize dag issue after custom lowering a load. If someone can give me pointers that would be great. I am using llvm 2.6 When custom lowering a load, the following code gets executed. Tmp1 = TLI.LowerOperation(Tmp3, DAG); if (Tmp1.getNode()) { Tmp3 = LegalizeOp(Tmp1); Tmp4 = LegalizeOp(Tmp1.getValue(1)); <----------------- what

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

What is the difference between these two functions? The header file for TargetLowering class says that LowerArguments must be implemented, but only the Sparc and IA64 backends implement them. X86, PowerPC and CellSPU implement LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS, but I can find a setOperationAction that states that they should be lowered. Can someone please explain this for me? Thanks, Micah Villmow

Are you marking i16 a legal type? In XXISelLowering.cpp, you should assign it a register class. e.g. addRegisterClass(MVT::i16, XX::i16RegisterClass) Evan On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > It seems that LLVM is converting all the 16 bit ints into 32 bit > ints. Is there a way I can tell LLVM that 16 bit ints are valid and > legal and not to do any conversions

Currently with my understanding of using callingconv.td I still need to lower three functions, FORMAL_ARGUMENTS, CALL, and RET. Is there any known way to have LLVM automagically generate code from tablegen without having to custom lower these functions? The reasoning for this is that all registers are virtual in my backend and I have specified for llvm to use it's generic dynamic stack

It depends on how your target models its addressing mode. Targets with complex addressing modes usually isel addresses with custom code. Evan On Mar 6, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > How do I match against this instruction? > 01ABDA58: i64,ch = load 01ABD948, 01ABD8C0, 01AB1350 <null:0> > > > This is the first time I’ve seen NULL in the memory operand >

I have a pass that modifies my machine dependent instructions and I have ran into a situation where I want to remove all instructions that an instruction is dependent on when I remove an instruction. Is there a way to do this using the API calls? For example, I have a sequence of instructions a = b + c d = c * c store d, *a load e, *a f = e + d since the store and load are

I am running into an issue where if I have multiple functions compiled in the same compilation unit the stack offset is not starting at zero. For example: func1(...) { ... } func2(...) { ... } Say the first function uses 64 bytes of the stack and an assumed offset of 0 and the second function uses 32 bytes of the stack but an assumed offset of 64. I've found out how to get the

I need to support 16 bit floats for some operations, outside of datatypes.td and the constants class, is there anything else I will need to modify to add f16 support? Thanks, Micah Villmow Systems Engineer Advanced Technology & Performance Advanced Micro Devices Inc. S1-609 One AMD Place Sunnyvale, CA. 94085 P: 408-749-3966 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

I've patched valuetypes.td/h to add data types that my backend needs to support. There seems to be a lot of assumptions made in other spots of the code that limit the number of data types to 32. I need to add a few more types, but once I go over this limit llvm starts acting wonky. I found all the items that are hard coded to 32 and a section that isn't, but I cannot figure out how to

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 3/15/2016 4:16 PM, Rail Shafigulin via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Below is the output of llc with a -debug-only=isel. As you could see the >> output type for load, store, and add changes from v4i32 to i32 during >> legalization. How can I preserve the output type to

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

> >>>> 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 Oct 2, 2008, at 10:11 AM, sanjiv gupta wrote: > 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: >>>>

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