similar to: [LLVMdev] MI.getNumOperands() < MI.getDesc().getNumOperands()

Comments below. On Apr 15, 2008, at 4:24 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > OK, here's a new patch that adds the infrastructure and the > implementation for X86, ARM and PPC of GetInstSize and > GetFunctionSize. Both functions are virtual functions defined in > TargetInstrInfo.h. > > For X86, I moved some commodity functions from X86CodeEmitter to > X86InstrInfo. >

Hi all, I have been experiencing difficulties building R (be this 2.13.1, beta, devel, or rc) on Windows 7 64bit. I believe I am following the manual religiously, and don't think I am doing anything differently from the many successful build attempts in the past. Unzipping the tarball works fine, but when I invoke make, I get (shown for R-rc, same for 2-13.1):

Yes, this is very helpful! Thank you! How does this work when exiting a variable's liveness range? Will it automatically know to free the stack slot for reuse? -Joe On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Steve Montgomery < stephen.montgomery3 at btinternet.com> wrote: > Sorry, forgot to Reply-All. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Steve Montgomery

Sorry, forgot to Reply-All. Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Montgomery <stephen.montgomery3 at btinternet.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Prevention register promotion at the isel codegen phase > Date: 24 November 2012 17:09:58 GMT > To: Joseph Pusdesris <joe at pusdesris.com> > > I had a similar problem trying to implement reg-mem operations. The solution I

Hi, I am trying to write a LowerCALL() function for my (custom) target ISA. All I need to do is map a CALL instruction directly onto an SDNode that takes an equal number of arguments (very much alike intrinsics, except that these are custom to my target.) I do not need to implement any call sequences, stack frames etc. I get the following assertion failure: llc: LegalizeDAG.cpp:834:

Hi Nickhil, The Legalizer expects lower'd call is the node that produce the same number of values as the non-lowered node. That's what the assertion is checking. Take a look at the LowerCall routine for any other targets. You will see that in the non-void function case, it returns a MERGE_VALUES, i.e. all the results merged along with the chain. Cheers, Evan On Nov 15, 2006, at

Hi all, I got a interesting problem when calling getNumOperands() of CallInst. For example, call void @_Z2f2PA100_i([100 x i32]* nonnull %arraydecay) If I use getNumOperands(), it will return 2. However, if I use getCalledFunction()->getNumParams(), it will return 1. According to the IR, I think the number of operands of the call instruction should be 1. I

Hi Evan, On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:17 -0800, Evan Cheng wrote: > Hi Nickhil, > > The Legalizer expects lower'd call is the node that produce the same > number of values as the non-lowered node. That's what the assertion > is checking. > > Take a look at the LowerCall routine for any other targets. You will > see that in the non-void function case, it

On Apr 16, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Hello Dale, > > this is an updated version of the tail call optimization patch for > powerpc. could you have a look at it? > > i added code to support ppc64 (untested, will try to get access to > ppc64 on a friend's machine). > incorporated evan's formatting suggestions. ;) > > will run another round

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > More nitpicks: > ... > No need for else here. :-) Done > SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; > > Just change last statement to > int SPDiff = (int)... Done > > +bool > +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, > +

On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > wrote: >> More nitpicks: >> ... >> No need for else here. :-) > Done >> SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; >> >> Just change last statement to >> int SPDiff = (int)... > Done >>

Hi, I notice that the following recent addition X86::CondCode X86::getCondFromBranch(const MachineInstr &MI) { switch (MI.getOpcode()) { default: return X86::COND_INVALID; case X86::JCC_1: return static_cast<X86::CondCode>( MI.getOperand(MI.getDesc().getNumOperands() - 1).getImm()); } } returns an invalid condition for JCC_2 and JCC_4 conditional opcodes. What is

Hi Måns, Always forcing 64-bit operands into even/odd pairs may lead to subpoptimal register allocation because not all 64 bit data requires paired regs. It seems there is no general pattern to match. Maybe we should treat it case by case. Jakob, do you have any suggestions? Thanks, Weiming Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

Hi all, The register allocator that I implemented is failing in the LLVM cvs version, but not in LLVM 1.1. The generated code fails a check in the x86 peephole optimizer: llc: PeepholeOptimizer.cpp:128: bool <unnamed>::PH::PeepholeOptimize(llvm::Machi neBasicBlock&, llvm::ilist_iterator<llvm::MachineInstr>&): Assertion `MI->getNum Operands() == 2 && "These

Hi all, I have encountered a weird case that I cannot understand. Inside the visitStoreInst I have a reference (F) to the function png_set_mem_fn. If I do F->dump() i can set the IR of that function correctly e.g.: ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define void @png_set_mem_fn(%struct.png_struct_def.68* noalias %png_ptr, i8* %mem_ptr, i8* (%struct.png_struct_def.68*, i64)* %malloc_fn, void

r175088 attempted to fix gcc inline asm compatibility with 64-bit operands by forcing these into even/odd register pairs the same way gcc always allocates such values. While the fix appears to work as such, it is not always activated when required. The patch makes the assumption that any inline asm statement relying on the even/odd allocation will make use of the %Hn syntax to reference the high

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 :

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

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