similar to: [LLVMdev] Spilling multi-word virtual registers

On Jul 20, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Ken Dyck wrote: > Does anybody have any tips for generating spills/reloads for large > non-vector registers? > > I'm working on a back end for a DSP architecture that has accumulator > registers that are too large to be spilled or reloaded with a single > instruction. All of their bits can be accessed in word-size chunks via > three

To make my point clear, I believe an implementation of storeRegToStackSlot()/loadRegFromStackSlot() is not sufficient (as it received the physical register already). Does this make sense? On 2018-01-30 13:33, ahmede wrote: > Right Matthias, I am aware that an implementation for > storeRegToStackSlot()/loadRegFromStackSlot() is necessary. But these > functions receive the physical

Right Matthias, I am aware that an implementation for storeRegToStackSlot()/loadRegFromStackSlot() is necessary. But these functions receive the physical register that need to be spilled, they might receive the sub-register. In this case, using the super-register naively is unsafe (e.g., one might overwrite parts of it). Thus, I think the register allocator/spillar need to be aware of the

I still think my answer applies that you have to modify storeRegToStackSlot()/loadRegFromStackSlot(). They decide how registers are spilled and reloaded. Nobody is stopping you from using super registers spills/reloads to implement spilling/reloading smaller registers there. - Matthias > On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:21 AM, ahmede <ahmede at ece.ubc.ca> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > >

Hi Quentin, Let me clarify if I understood this correctly. If the accesses (writes and reads) to sub-registers are expressed always as sub-registers of the super-register register class (e.g., SuperReg.sub1;), then the spilling decision is for the super register. But, if the accesses are in terms of the register class of the sub-registers directly (SubReg;), then the spilling decision will

Hi Matthias, No. I want the register allocator to spill the super-register (the large one e.g., 64-bit) and not just the sub-register (e.g., the 32-bit that is a piece of of the 64-bit register) because the stack loads/store width is 64-bit in this example. RegClass1 (sub-registers): sub_registers (32-bit) --> can be natively used in arithmetic operations but no stack

Hi Ahmed, If you access your values with sub-registers indices, IIRC the inline spiller will spill the super register. If you access your values directly (via sub-regclass), then the spiller uses this class. Basically what I am saying is the spiller spills the value that contains the accesses. E.g., = v; will spill v = v.sub1; will spill v too, but v is a super register in that case. Cheers,

Hi folks, I'm running into this weird issue where the register spills appear to be missing for an "if" block for some reason. For example, the original if/else blocks: --- if reg0 // storeRegToStackSlot for reg1 // do something - missing a load for reg1? else // storeRegToStackSlot for reg1 // do something // loadRegFromStackSlot for reg1 end ---- I tried looking in the LLVM

> On Jan 29, 2018, at 1:20 PM, ahmede via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > I wonder if there is a way in LLVM to disable spilling a register-class while still enabling the super-registers of this register-class to be spilled. What would you have the register allocator do when it runs out of register and you have spilling disabled? Abort the

Hello, I am developing compiler for the 8-bit PicoBlaze processor in LLVM 2.9. The problem at hand is that the stack spilling code in this architecture modifies the machine FLAGS register (i.e. globally visible state). The LLVM core code does not know about this 'feature' and happily inserts spilling code anywhere it wants, thus (potentially) corrupting live FLAGS. Practically, the FLAGS

On the page "http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#regAlloc_howTo" under the header "Register Allocation" and subheader "Mapping Virtual Registers to Physical Registers" the api reference "TargetRegisterInfo::storeRegToStackSlot(...)" and " TargetRegisterInfo::loadRegFromStackSlot" should be "TargetInstrInfo::storeRegToStackSlot(...)"

In our case, storeRegToStackSlot, loadRegFromStackSlot clobbers some other physical register which may be holding a live value used somewhere else. How do I make regalloc aware so that it saves the value before storeRegToStackSlot and make it available again at the point of earlier use? TIA, Sanjiv -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> writes: >> A MachineOperand has both a getReg() and a getSubReg() interface. >> For a physical register operand, is getReg() guaranteed to be the >> "most super" register with getSubReg() providing the specific >> subregister information for the operand? If so then for my current >> purposes it seems I

On Oct 22, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote: > In our case, storeRegToStackSlot, loadRegFromStackSlot clobbers some > other physical register which may be holding a live value used > somewhere else. How do I make regalloc aware so that it saves the > value before storeRegToStackSlot and make it available again at the > point of earlier use? >

Jakob and anyone else who might be interested... Base on this patch back in August, I sense some need to double check with you whether it is OK to start making a heavy use of MachineOperand TargetFlags? We do seem to have a compelling reason for it in Hexagon, and I wanted to make sure that it is OK with everyone. I plan to use it for attributing target specific info to MOs and in more general

Hi Brian, +1 on what Nemanja said: specifying large register classes is the key. More details here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137700.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-December/137700.html> Cheers, -Quentin > On Sep 9, 2020, at 11:13 AM, Nemanja Ivanovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On PowerPC, we

On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 11:17 -0700, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote: > > > In our case, storeRegToStackSlot, loadRegFromStackSlot clobbers some > > other physical register which may be holding a live value used > > somewhere else. How do I make regalloc aware so that it saves the > > value before

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:19 -0700, Evan Cheng wrote: > You need to specify sub-register == super-register, idx relationship. > See X86RegisterInfo.td: > > def x86_subreg_8bit : PatLeaf<(i32 1)>; > def x86_subreg_16bit : PatLeaf<(i32 2)>; > def x86_subreg_32bit : PatLeaf<(i32 3)>; > > def : SubRegSet<1, [AX, CX, DX, BX, SP, BP, SI, DI, >

Hi, I have a problem regarding sub-register definitions and LiveIntervals on our target. When a subregister is defined, other parts of the register are always left untouched - they are neither read or def:ed. It however seems that Codegen treats subregister definitions as somehow clobbering the whole register. The SSA-code looks like this after isel: (Reg0 and Reg1 are 16bit registers. Reg2,

Enabling subreg liveness tracking didn't do anything. By altering the allocation order I managed to get the backend to use CL/CH for the struct, but the stores were still separate (even though storing CX would be correct)... Here's another question that falls into the same category: The function X86InstrInfo::loadRegFromStackSlot does not append any implicit uses/defs. How does it