similar to: [LLVMdev] Missing isBarrier on ARM/THUMB return instructions

Hi, this is a small patch of ARM Instructions description because "-verify-machineinstrs" complains about that. This doesn't break the tests on my machine. Regards -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: patch_barrier URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090929/84aca914/attachment.ksh>

Hi, I meet an issue when I verify machineinstrs for Powerpc testcases in llvm. llc -mtriple=powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu < llvm/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/sj-ctr-loop.ll -verify-machineinstrs Bad machine code: MBB exits via unconditional fall-through but ends with a barrier instruction! *** function: main basic block: %bb.2 for.body.lr.ph (0x100275437e8) Content in block BB.2:

> 2. The backend (llc) converts that to Dwarf (or something else as > desired by that back-end). > How advanced is LLVM Dwarf generation compared to GCC ?

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Sylvere Teissier<st at invia.fr> wrote: >> 2. The backend (llc) converts that to Dwarf (or something else as >> desired by that back-end). >> > How advanced is LLVM Dwarf generation compared to GCC ? Devang can probably give a better answer, but my understanding is: 1. At -O0, the quality is very good, with a few exceptions (like

> Calling 0 is undefined behavior; the optimizer is within its rights to > remove this. Why do you want to call 0? For example, on embedded platforms you call 0 to do a soft reset. > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

This looks like a bar in ARMInstrInfo.td: BX_RET should be marked with Uses = [LR] since it uses LR. However, this won't work if there is a call BL before the BX_RET. BL is marked as if it implicitly define LR. So we'll end up with this (hello world example): Live Ins: %LR %R7 %SP<def> = SUBri %SP<kill>, 8, 14, %reg0, %reg0 STR %LR<kill>, %SP,

On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:37 AMPST, Evan Cheng wrote: > This looks like a bar in ARMInstrInfo.td: > > BX_RET should be marked with Uses = [LR] since it uses LR. However, > this won't work if there is a call BL before the BX_RET. BL is marked > as if it implicitly define LR. So we'll end up with this (hello world > example): PPC has the call (BL) marked with Defs=LR and the

Hi, I'm working on the iterated register coalescing graph coloring allocator and try to test it with all backends available currently in LLVM. Initial tests with most of the backends are successful. It turned out that my allocator triggers a specific assertion in the RegScavenger and only for the ARM target. It looks like the LR register is used for frame pointer related things, but it is

Hi, Compiling attached test-case, which is reduced version of of uECC_shared_secret from tinycrypt library [1], with --target=arm-linux-gnueabi -march=armv6-m -Oz -S results in reloading of register holding function's address before every call to blx: ldr r3, .LCPI0_0 blx r3 mov r0, r6 mov r1, r5 mov r2, r4 ldr r3,

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: > Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) > %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0, %reg0 > *** STR %LR<kill>, %R0<kill>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0, Mem:ST(4,4) > [0x8fc2d68 + 0] > %LR<def> = LDR <fi#0>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0 >

On Sep 4, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > If you want to take a look at this yourself, the issue is easy to > reproduce with Thumb1: Thanks, Eli. Nice catch! This IR: target triple = "thumbv5-u-u" define arm_aapcscc i64 @foo(i64 %a, i64 %b) nounwind readnone { entry: %xor = xor i64 %a, 18 ; <i64> [#uses=1] %xor2 = xor i64 %xor, %b

Hi Evan, Thanks for your feedback! 2009/1/7 Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>: > > On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > > > As you can see, PrologEpilogInserter has inserted at the beginning > of the function some code for manipulation of the frame pointer and > this inserted code uses the LR register. > As far as I understand,

2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: > > On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > >> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: >> Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) >> %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0, %reg0 >> *** STR %LR<kill>, %R0<kill>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0, Mem:ST(4,4) >> [0x8fc2d68 + 0]

On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Roman Levenstein <romix.llvm at googlemail.com > wrote: > 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: >> >> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: >> >>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: >>> Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) >>> %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0,

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > > > As you can see, PrologEpilogInserter has inserted at the beginning > of the function some code for manipulation of the frame pointer and > this inserted code uses the LR register. > As far as I understand, ARMRegisterInfo.td should exclude the LR > register from the set of allocatable registers for functions that

Hi again, 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>: > > > On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Roman Levenstein <romix.llvm at googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: >>> >>> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: >>> >>>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1:

On Jun 4, 2010, at 3:05 AM, Sylvere Teissier wrote: > > In my target the CALL instruction change the link Register %LR > In the target InstrInfo.td I have "Defs=[LR]" on the CALL instruction > definition to handle that. So your CALL instructions are clobbering your callee-saved registers, eh? ;-) > It works well with others registers allocators: when there is a call

On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Richard Pennington wrote: > Notice that the label $BB0_1 is missing. If I disable filling in the > branch delay slots, I get: Is this with the latest SVN HEAD version of LLVM or some other version? The delay slot filler and many other things have been updated for the Microblaze backend. In particular, the commit r120095 for the MBlaze backend fixed some issues

Hi David, > [(set GR32:$rD, globaladdr:$addr)] > It seems to have somehow managed to create a cycle in the DAG, which is > of course wrong. But how? When I write a similar pattern into the ARM .td files and look at (from the build directory) lib/Target/ARM/ARMGenDAGISel.inc, I see: /*56478*/ /*SwitchOpcode*/ 13, TARGET_VAL(ISD::GlobalAddress),// ->56494 /*56481*/

Hi, I have attached WIP patch for adding foldMemoryOperand to Thumb1InstrInfo. For the following case: void f(int x, int y, int z) { void bar(int, int, int); bar(x, y, z); bar(x, z, y); bar(y, x, z); bar(y, y, x); } it calls foldMemoryOperand twice, and thus converts two calls from blx to bl. callMI->dump() shows the function name "bar" correctly, however in generated