similar to: [LLVMdev] Patch - big stackframes on SPU

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 700 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Patch - big stackframes on SPU"

2010 Feb 24
0
[LLVMdev] Patch - big stackframes on SPU
On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Kalle.Raiskila at nokia.com wrote: > Hello all, > > currently the SPU backend does not handle big stack frames (>16*511 > bytes) nicely. llc asserts on malformed machine instructions. > (Assertion `MI->getOperand(OpNo).isImm() && "printDFormAddr first > operand is not immediate") Sounds fine to me in general. Please write a
2010 Feb 26
3
[LLVMdev] Patch - big stackframes on SPU
Chris Lattner skrev: > On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Kalle.Raiskila at nokia.com wrote: >> currently the SPU backend does not handle big stack frames (>16*511 >> bytes) nicely. llc asserts on malformed machine instructions. >> (Assertion `MI->getOperand(OpNo).isImm() && "printDFormAddr first >> operand is not immediate") > > Sounds fine
2010 Mar 29
3
[LLVMdev] Patch - Big stacks on SPU, take 2
Hi, attached is a second try for the bigstack patch for SPU, with testcase. It is essentially the patch committed as 97091, and reverted as 97099, but with the following additions: -in vararg handling, registers are marked to be live, to not confuse the register scavenger -function prologue and epilogue are not emitted, if the stack size is 16. 16 means it is empty - there is only the
2010 Apr 19
1
[LLVMdev] Patch - Allow calls that return i8 or i16. On SPU.
hi, either function call in this code makes llc (targeting SPU) assert: declare i8 @return_i8() declare i16 @return_i16() define void @testfunc() { %rv1 = call i8 @return_i8() %rv2 = call i16 @return_i16() ret void } Attached is a patch to fix it, and remove some related redundant code. Does this rather trivial fix warrant a test case? kalle -------------- next part -------------- A
2010 Mar 05
1
[LLVMdev] Patch - SPU assembly printer to print ".section .bss"
Hello, I noticed that the SPU assembly printer prints just ".bss", when gas requires ".section .bss". Now the gas prints out: Assembler messages: Error: expected symbol name Attached is a test case and a patch to fix this. (This time 'make check' passes also ;) kalle -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: spu_bss.patch
2010 Apr 07
1
[LLVMdev] Patch - SPU bss alignment
Hi, On SPU, variables in the .bss section that are allocated with the .lcomm directive are not aligned on 16 byte boundaries. This causes misaligned loads, as the generated assembly assumes this "default" alignment. A patch to disable .lcomm in favour of '.local .comm' is attached. kalle P.s. As an example, the following function returns '3', when '5' is
2010 Feb 26
0
[LLVMdev] Patch - big stackframes on SPU
Hello > Would it be possible to conditionally enable the register scavenger only if > the function has a big stack? It now gets unconditionally enabled in >  SPURegisterInfo::requiresRegisterScavenging(const MachineFunction &MF). > Just checking MF.getFrameInfo()->getStackSize() here doesn't seem to be the > solution... Well, I think no. regscavenger should work well
2010 Feb 26
3
[LLVMdev] RegisterScavenging on targets without subregisters
Kalle: Your patch is similar to what I'd coded (and am testing, which means a couple of hours before I consider committing). Other than cosmetic changes and changing 'NULL' to '0' (it's an integer list, after all). This patch now causes new problems in the CellSPU backend (more stqd's and lqd's), so I have to investigate those before committing the patch.
2011 Jan 05
3
[LLVMdev] Building LLVM-GCC on Linux/PowerPC failed
On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Kalle Raiskila wrote: > >> And I probably should file a bug. Is ppc32 still maintained? > > I have no concrete knowledge of this, but llvm compiles > and passes all tests on ppc32, so it seems to be maintained. > About once a week I grab the latest SVN head and check this. It is run by one of the automatic
2011 Jan 31
1
[LLVMdev] Possible CellSPU Bug?
Kalle Raiskila <kalle.raiskila at nokia.com> writes: > Looks like a bug to me. xshw (extend signed half-word(16bits) to > word(32bits)) takes a v8i16 and produces a v4i32. This has likely gone > unnoticed as there is only one type of vector register class (i.e. > VECREG) that is used for all vectors. > > Nice catch :) Are there more of these? I don't know. I stopped
2011 Jan 07
0
[LLVMdev] Building LLVM-GCC on Linux/PowerPC failed
dalej skrev: > On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > >> Kalle Raiskila wrote: >> >>> And I probably should file a bug. Is ppc32 still maintained? >> I have no concrete knowledge of this, but llvm compiles >> and passes all tests on ppc32, so it seems to be maintained. >> About once a week I grab the latest SVN head and check this.
2010 Mar 01
0
[LLVMdev] RegisterScavenging on targets without subregisters
On Feb 28, 2010, at 11:49 PM, <Kalle.Raiskila at nokia.com> <Kalle.Raiskila at nokia.com> wrote: > Jakob Stoklund Olesen skrev: >> On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Scott Michel wrote: >>> This patch now causes new problems in the CellSPU >>> backend (more stqd's and lqd's), so I have to investigate those >>> before committing the patch. >
2010 Jun 04
2
[LLVMdev] Heads up: Local register allocator going away
On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:57 AM, <Kalle.Raiskila at nokia.com> <Kalle.Raiskila at nokia.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 02:53 +0200, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >> If you are using the local register allocator, please try switching to the fast allocator and report any bugs you find. >> > Tried it, and it seems to break quite a big chunk of our tests on SPU :)
2011 Jan 05
2
[LLVMdev] Building LLVM-GCC on Linux/PowerPC failed
On ons, 2011-01-05 at 15:23 +0800, ext 陳韋任 wrote: > Hi, folks > > I am "stll" trying to build LLVM-GCC 4.2 on a Linux/PS3 machine, which > has a 64-bit OS. Don't know if it helps, but clang at least builds nicely. Unfortunately I have a 32bit runtime installed and this seems to cause problems somewhere - clang defaults to 64bit assembly (if I understood the output
2011 Jan 31
0
[LLVMdev] Possible CellSPU Bug?
David Greene wrote: > class XSHWVecInst<ValueType in_vectype, ValueType out_vectype>: > def v4i32: XSHWVecInst<v4i32, v8i16>; > Is this pattern as intended, or did I find a real problem? Looks like a bug to me. xshw (extend signed half-word(16bits) to word(32bits)) takes a v8i16 and produces a v4i32. This has likely gone unnoticed as there is only one type of vector
2010 Jun 08
0
[LLVMdev] Heads up: Local register allocator going away
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 20:05 +0200, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > You should fix SPUTargetLowering::LowerCall to make sure there is an unbroken chain of flag ties between CopyFromReg and BRASL. At least ARM, MBlaze, and Blackfin are doing this, if you need example code. > Thanks for the tip. This got fixed in 105601. And with that, half of the problematic tests appearing with
2011 Jan 29
3
[LLVMdev] Possible CellSPU Bug?
I'm working on enhancing TableGen's type checking and it triggered with a problem in CellSPU's specification: XSHWv4i32: (set VECREG:v8i16:$rDest, (sext:v8i16 VECREG:v4i32:$rSrc)) It's complaining that v4i32 is not smaller than v8i16, which is true in the sense of vector bit size, and true in the sense of vector element size. To me, a sign extension from i32 to i16 makes no
2010 Mar 29
0
[LLVMdev] Patch - Big stacks on SPU, take 2
On Mar 29, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Kalle Raiskila wrote: > attached is a second try for the bigstack patch for SPU, with testcase. It is essentially the patch committed as 97091, and reverted as 97099, but with the following additions: > -in vararg handling, registers are marked to be live, to not confuse the register scavenger Looks good. You can try running with -verify-machineinstrs to detect
2010 Jun 03
2
[LLVMdev] Heads up: Local register allocator going away
I just changed the default register allocator for -O0 builds to the fast allocator. This means that the local register allocator is not used anymore, and since it does more or less the same as the fast allocator, there is no reason to keep it around. I am going to delete it in a week or two. If you are using the local register allocator, please try switching to the fast allocator and report any
2010 Jun 04
0
[LLVMdev] Heads up: Local register allocator going away
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 02:53 +0200, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > If you are using the local register allocator, please try switching to the fast allocator and report any bugs you find. > Tried it, and it seems to break quite a big chunk of our tests on SPU :) Before r103488 ("Mostly rewrite RegAllocFast") there was no problem. But with r103488, I get a: