similar to: [LLVMdev] regression testing

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 2009, at 5:01 PMPDT, OvermindDL1 wrote: > >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On May 12, 2009, at 3:09 PMPDT, OvermindDL1 wrote: >>> >>>> The error given: >>>>

On Aug 18, 2010, at 11:37 AMPDT, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > On 8/18/2010 12:39 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >> I can look at this, but you'll need to send the .bc file. Please >> open a PR? > > I would do it but I am in a bit of a pickle as the .bc is from > propriety code and > I can not post it. Can't help much then. You might look into obfuscating the

Perhaps what I think is a problem really is not a problem. So when a jump occurs from one block A to block B, then the registers are certain state, and register allocation happens with the initial state defined by A->B. When a third block C jumps to block B, the state of the registers are different. Thus register allocation needs to account for the jump from C->B, by a few ways: 1. The

On 8/18/2010 12:39 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > I can look at this, but you'll need to send the .bc file. Please open > a PR? I would do it but I am in a bit of a pickle as the .bc is from propriety code and I can not post it. Anyway, I have been trying to re-create the problem in a simpler test case. Since, I do not have access to the source for the .bc I am trying to guess the

Assign the bug to me and I'll fix it in TOT next week! Thanks for narrowing it down! On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, Nicolas Capens <nicolas.capens at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think I figured it out: > 112804 causes 64-bit UNPCKLBW to no longer be selected for certain cases. > 112805 is benign. > 112806 causes 64-bit UNPCKHBW to no longer be selected for

Can we help in local variable debug info work. Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Apr 7, 2009, at 9:52 PMPDT, vasudev wrote: > > >> Thanks for the info regarding DebugLoc field. Another related >> question >> that I have is regarding debug info for local variables. With -fast >> option, ISD::DECLARE nodes are created in DAG for debug info of local >>

It is at the end allowing for oddities like debug info and multiple branches. You might want to look at AnalyzeBranch. On Sep 2, 2010, at 4:19 PMPDT, Jeff Kunkel wrote: > Is there any way to tell where in the Instruction list, the branch > to the other MachineBasicBlock happens? I know in the BasicBlock had > a nice api for it. > > Thanks, > Jeff Kunkel > > On Thu,

On May 12, 2009, at 5:01 PMPDT, OvermindDL1 wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> On May 12, 2009, at 3:09 PMPDT, OvermindDL1 wrote: >> >>> The error given: >>> >>> ..\..\..\..\trunk\lib\Transforms\Scalar >>> \LoopStrengthReduce.cpp(1016) : >>> error C2668:

On Aug 27, 2010, at 3:43 PMPDT, Yuri wrote: > On 08/27/2010 12:13, Dale Johannesen wrote: > Here's what happens: > The first instruction created is RET. > SelectBasicBlock is called. > TCRETURNri64 is created from within it. > HasTailCall is set to true as you mentioned. > Cycle in SelectionDAGISel::SelectBasicBlock skips the rest. > > All like you described. But

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Dale Johannesen<dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 15, 2009, at 1:43 PMPDT, Török Edwin wrote: >> On 2009-07-15 23:24, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>> On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:52 AMPDT, Stuart Hastings wrote: > >>> I wonder if we might be able to automate the stabilization somewhat. >>> I'm not at all sure this can be

Thanks. I could take a look at the lines and all of them have smull instruction like 'smull r0, r1, r0, r1'. Won On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:52 PMPDT, Won J Jeon wrote: > > I tried a couple of options (-mcpu=arm1136j-s, -mcpu=arm1136jf-s, > -march=armv6, ...) to let the compile know the

On Friday 09 October 2009 15:47, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Oct 9, 2009, at 1:26 PMPDT, David Greene wrote: > > Ok, I've been looking at this for hours and can't figure it out. I > > know I'm > > missing something obvious. > > > > I've been spending the past few days beefing up the vector support > > in the C > > Backend. This should

Is there any way to tell where in the Instruction list, the branch to the other MachineBasicBlock happens? I know in the BasicBlock had a nice api for it. Thanks, Jeff Kunkel On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2010, at 2:44 PMPDT, Jeff Kunkel wrote: > >> I need to track which MachineBasicBlocks branch into other

On 7/1/20 2:06 PM, Michael Kruse wrote: > Am Mi., 1. Juli 2020 um 11:37 Uhr schrieb Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>: >> We can have different printing modes. There can be a more-human-friendly mode and a more-FileCheck-friendly mode. Or modes customized for different kinds of tests. I agree, however, that this does not solve the fragility problems with CHECK-NOT. > This would be

On Aug 10, 2010, at 1:47 PMPDT, Bueno, Denis wrote: > On 8/10/10 2:39 PM, "Dale Johannesen" <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > >> What environment is this? Some JITs work better than others. > > Ubuntu Lucid, x86_64. No idea then. It was surely tested on x86-64 Linux, if not that exact variant.

I'm interested in cleaning up the documentation for this, but it is in 4 different formats. From the makefile it looks like the .pod is the master. Do I need to do anything special after changing this to get it propagated elsewhere? On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:52 PMPDT, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Turner wrote: >> Just thought I'd mention this

Ping. Anyone have any idea on how to fix this? Thanks, Micah From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Villmow, Micah Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:28 PM To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Default behavior of DeadMachineInstructionElim deletes all instructions Dale, Yeah that is correct, so that isn't the problem, not sure

Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Jun 30, 2009, at 11:18 AMPDT, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Dale Johannesen<dalej at apple.com> >> wrote: >>> On Jun 29, 2009, at 5:41 PMPDT, Reid Kleckner wrote: >>> >>>> So I (think I) found a bug in the JIT: >>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4483

Dale, Yeah that is correct, so that isn't the problem, not sure why I was thinking it is. The !MRI->use_no_dbg_empty(Reg) seems to be correct and the problem is LivePhysRegs[Reg] always returning false. I've looked into this more and there is a part where I'm working with physical registers. If there is a function call, there is a copy from virtual register space to the functions

Thanks, Dale, that really helps. What about disabling only one backend of a specific test? Thanks, --Patrick On 07/22/10 16:04, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:44 PMPDT, Patrick Alexander Simmons wrote: > >> From http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html >> >> Some tests are known to fail. Some are bugs that we have not fixed yet; >> others are