similar to: [LLVMdev] Overlapping register classes

On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing a backend for the Blackfin processor from Analog > Devices. I > just started so I still have a lot to learn about the code > generator. So > far, I can compile test/CodeGen/Generic/BasicInstrs.ll correctly, but > that is about it. > > The Blackfin 32-bit registers divide naturally

Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> writes: > On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >> Am I misusing register classes, or is this simply functionality that >> has not been written yet? The existing backends seem to have only one >> register class per machine value type. > > The x86 backend has an example of a partial solution. The GR32 >

On Mar 16, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> writes: > >> On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >>> Am I misusing register classes, or is this simply functionality that >>> has not been written yet? The existing backends seem to have only >>> one >>> register class per

Ok, I've found that marking tiny live intervals as not spillable inside VirtRegAuxInfo::CalculateWeightAndHint is not playing nicely with very constrained regclasses, in my case a regclass composed of only one register. As a workaround, instead of marking them as not spillable, I've marked them with a very high spill cost and the regalloc is able to compile the function with good code

Hello Jakob, Did you get a chance to take a look into this, and if not, can you do it when you get some spare time? Thanks! 2012/12/19 Borja Ferrer <borja.ferav at gmail.com> > We did something like this back when the register allocator couldn't split >> live ranges. >> > > Yes, I remember the isWinToJoinCrossClass() function, removed here: > >

> On Aug 24, 2015, at 4:46 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is the snippet that matters: > > void > InstrEmitter::AddRegisterOperand(MachineInstrBuilder &MIB, > SDValue Op, > unsigned IIOpNum, > const MCInstrDesc *II, >

Hi Ryan, > On Aug 24, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Quentin, > > I apologize for the spamming here but in getVR (where VReg is assigned an RC), it calls: > > const TargetRegisterClass *RC = TLI->getRegClassFor(Op.getSimpleValueType()); > VReg = MRI->createVirtualRegister(RC); > > My question is why is it using the

The MIR format currently has a short-hand syntax for declaring vreg classes and banks in the function body so you can write something like this: name: foo body: | %3:gpr(s64) = ... rather than the much more verbose and awkward: name: foo registers: - { id: 3, class: gpr } body: | %3(s64) = ... I'd like to make this shorthand the only way to do this. There are a few

Quentin, This is the issue. Somewhere prior to the constrainRegClass, it's assigning the GPRBase sub class of GPR to the MOV instruction, so it can't constrain it to Base and hence has to add the COPY. Now I just need to find out why it is ignoring the TableGen defined GPRBase for the MOV MI in favor of it's sub class GPR. Thanks. On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Ryan Taylor

On Jan 7, 2013, at 4:58 AM, Borja Ferrer <borja.ferav at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Jakob, > > Did you get a chance to take a look into this, and if not, can you do it when you get some spare time? It's not likely I'll have time to look at this in the near future. I'd recommend you do it yourself. /jakob > 2012/12/19 Borja Ferrer <borja.ferav at gmail.com>

On Jan 9, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Borja Ferrer <borja.ferav at gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, I've found that marking tiny live intervals as not spillable inside VirtRegAuxInfo::CalculateWeightAndHint is not playing nicely with very constrained regclasses, in my case a regclass composed of only one register. > As a workaround, instead of marking them as not spillable, I've marked them

I have not tried 3.5, it's a significant amount of work to port from one version to the next though, I did not personally do the 3.4 to 3.6 porting. I agree though, it was very strange that it suddenly just changed behavior. It looks like to me that InstrEmitter.cpp:getVR is the one assigning the virtual register no? Though this code in CreateVirtualRegisters: const TargetRegisterClass *RC

AddRegisterOperand calls getVR and yes, I think an IMPLICIT_DEF is being generated. On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I have not tried 3.5, it's a significant amount of work to port from one > version to the next though, I did not

1. MOV16Copy_IMM_REG is the instruction matched, sorry. AD is the multiclass. The IMM in my case is a global. So you can see that GPRBaseRegs, GPRBaseRegs sets the registerclass for both the src and dst operands, in this case (MOV16Copy_IMM_REG) it's the dst. 2. Yes I agree, it most likely would. Honestly, this comes across like a bug, or unintended feature. It's adding an extra COPY to

Reframing and Reposting my earlier query: My target has 16-bit registers for indirect address of data. All other registers are 8-bit. Therefore I have added regclasses for i8 and i16 types. All arithmetic operations (including pointer arithmetic ) are 8-bit operations. The problem is that LLVM does not expand i16 operations to i8 operations in presence of i16 regclass. What is the best way to

Here is the instruction in question: multiclass AD<string asmstr, SDPatternOperator OpNode, RegisterClass srcAReg, RegisterClass dstReg, ValueType srcAType, ValueType dstType, Operand ImmOd, ImmLeaf imm_type> { def REG_REG : SetADInOut<asmstr, srcAReg, dstReg, [(set dstReg:$dstD, (OpNode srcAReg:$srcA))]>; def IMM_REG :

BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry %vreg0<def> = MOV16Copy_IMM_REG <ga:@a+1>[TF=1]; GPRRegs:%vreg0 %vreg1<def> = COPY %vreg0; PTRRegs:%vreg1 GPRRegs:%vreg0 Send_iii %NULLR0, %vreg1<kill>, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0; PTRRegs:%vreg1 RetRA This is what I get. This is what I'd like to get: BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry %vreg0<def> = MOV16Copy_IMM_REG

Hi Jacob, thank you for your reply. Your suggestion works! But instead of using the Pat<>, I am using def MOVE_ADDR : MYInst<(outs Int32Regs:$dst), (ins i32mem:$a), "move $dst, $a;", [(set Int32Regs:$dst, (Wrapper tglobaladdr:$a))]>; I don't quite understand what the semantics of Pat in general. Could you please explain what

> On Aug 24, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm trying to do something like this: > > // Dst = NewVReg's reg class > // *II = MCInstrDesc > // IIOpNum = II Operand Num > > if (TRI->getCommonSubClass(DstRC, TRI->getRegClass(II->OpInfo[IIOpNum].RegClass)) == DstRC) > MRI->setRegClass(VReg, DstRC); >

Hi! I'm writing a new back-end for a new architecture. First, I'll do some "tests" with an existing back-end (I chose the Sparc back-end). My architecture has special address-registers and I want to add such new address-registers to my Sparc back-end. 1) I defined a new register call AddrRegs 2) I registered the class AddrRegs (addRegisterClass(MVT::iPTR, .. )) 3) I