similar to: [LLVMdev] Win64 bugs

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Peter Shugalev<peter at shugalev.com> wrote: > Hello! > > I've just tried generating Win64 code and the result is not that good. > > First of all, XMM registers are saved without reason to do so. Not only > this slows the performance but leads to random crashes too. XMMs are > stored to the stack with MOVAPS instruction which requires

On 30-Jul-09, at 8:54 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Peter Shugalev<peter at shugalev.com> > wrote: >> Though the most problematic stuff is the lack of 'shadow zone' >> support >> in Win64 ABI. Or maybe I haven't figured out how to turn this on. In >> Win64 any function can treat 32 bytes of stack (RSP+08h..RSP+28h

Hi Peter, The attached patch is a workaround for the XMM misalignment issue. Basically it uses the fallback method of saving and restoring registers on the stack, which does work correctly with alignment. If I recall correctly it also doesn't save any registers unnecessarily, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, it's hack, but if all you want for now is to be able to work with Win64

Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > On 30-Jul-09, at 8:54 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Peter Shugalev<peter at shugalev.com> >> wrote: >>> Though the most problematic stuff is the lack of 'shadow zone' >>> support >>> in Win64 ABI. Or maybe I haven't figured out how to turn this on. In >>> Win64 any

Hello, Nicolas > The attached patch is a workaround for the XMM misalignment issue. Basically > it uses the fallback method of saving and restoring registers on the stack, > which does work correctly with alignment. If I recall correctly it also > doesn't save any registers unnecessarily, but I could be wrong about that. Please don't use this patch, it's completely wrong.

Hello, I think I've found a bug in the calling convention support for X86-64/ Win64. It doesn't correctly save and restore the XMM registers in the function prolog/epilog. (The problem only exists on Win64, since Linux and Mac OS use calling convention in which these registers are volatile and not callee-saved.) X86RegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs() when called for a Win64

On Jan 9, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Demikhovsky, Elena wrote: > >> I'll explain what we see in the code. >> 1. The caller saves XMM registers across the call if needed (according to DEFS definition). >> YMMs are not in the set, so caller does not take care. > > This is not how the register allocator

Thorvald, re: At 03:18 AM 1/6/2006, Thorvald Natvig wrote: >I just checked it in the debugger, and this was with gcc 3.4.4 (mingw)... >And the addresses were not properly aligned :( From a bit of googling, >this seems to be a thread problem, as the gcc just maintains 16-byte >alignment of the stack -- if the start function of the thread had >misaligned stack, the misalignment

Hi Anton, Thanks a lot for the heads up. I hadn't run into any problems yet with my hack because I haven't used other callee-saved registers so far. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your fix! Kind regards, Nicolas -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Anton Korobeynikov Sent: zaterdag 1 augustus 2009

This is the wrong code: declare <16 x float> @foo(<16 x float>) define <16 x float> @test(<16 x float> %x, <16 x float> %y) nounwind { entry: %x1 = fadd <16 x float> %x, %y %call = call <16 x float> @foo(<16 x float> %x1) nounwind %y1 = fsub <16 x float> %call, %y ret <16 x float> %y1 } ./llc -mattr=+avx

> I've seen the exact same in my version (mingw on win32), and the problem > was that the stack was misaligned when entering the function, so the temp > registers weren't at 16-byte boundries. That's a possibility. It's easy to check by printing the address of the variables. I know that gcc 3.3 had some alignment issues with _m128 that were supposed to be fixed in

+LLVMdev On Aug 4, 2012, at 9:45 AM, João Matos wrote: > Charles Davis did a lot of work on Win64 SEH support in LLVM, check commits r131652-r132880. > > As I haven't tested it yet, what exactly is broken? It's not finished yet. All the stuff for assembly code that uses Win64 EH is done, but not the code-gen-side stuff (cf. Win64Exception class in CodeGen). I was about to

> Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:49:50 -0700 > From: Michael Lewis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Status of stack walking in LLVM on Win64? > Message-ID: > <CAEm7p3svyOi6JU6r_RCCtRfGhTgTHeRw-SR0iD+9Edv2pi71Dw at

RFC: A proposal for vectorizing loops with calls to math functions using SVML (short vector math library). ========= Overview ========= Very simply, SVML (Intel short vector math library) functions are vector variants of scalar math functions that take vector arguments, apply an operation to each element, and store the result in a vector register. These vector variants can be generated by the

 > These is metadata for epilogues (UWOP_EPILOG) but it is only available on Windows 8.1 and newer. I'm aware of this. I believe it is so sampling profilers can walk the kernel stack including through paged code -- i.e. the epilogue data is not paged, while the related epilogue code might be. Do you see it used, i.e. in usermode?  (where the pdata/xdata/code are all equally paged). It

Hi Sanjay, For sincos calls, I’m currently just going through isTriviallyVectorizable(), which was good enough to get things working so that I could test the translation. I don’t see why this cannot be changed to use addVectorizableFunctionsFromVecLib(). The other functions that I’m working with are already vectorized using the loop pragma. Those include sin, cos, exp, log, and pow. From: Sanjay

Hello, Depending on how I extract integer lanes from an x86_64 xmm register, the backend may spill that register in order to load scalars. The effect was observed on two targets: corei7-avx and btver1 (I haven't checked other targets). Here's a test case with spilling/no-spilling code put on conditional compile: #if __SSE4_1__ != 0 #include <smmintrin.h> #else #include

Hi! I have discovered a problem with LLVM's interpretation of the Win64 calling convention w.r.t. passing of aggregates as arguments. The following code is part of my host application that is compiled with Visual Studio 2005 in 64-bit debug mode. noise4 expects a structure of four floats as its first and only argument, which is - in accordance with the specs of the Win64 calling convention -

Hi, I'm new to LLVM and have some questions about using the JIT on Windows x64. I am aware that this is currently broken but am attempting to use the hack/patch proposed in this bug http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3739. I checked out the revision the patch was created for (66183) and applied it but the assembler generated seems to fail whenever it reaches a movaps insctruction.

Thanks for reviving this topic! Interestingly we have essentially the same fix you mention below ( https://reviews.llvm.org/D62639) as a local change in our Wind River version of LLVM. The reason we didn't try to push it upstream (and in fact have considered removing it) is due to an unfortunate side-effect which is either "expected" or a "bug" depending on your