similar to: [LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Register Allocation and copy instructions

On Nov 8, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Jeff Kunkel wrote: > Hi, while writing my register allocator, I have come across a case which confuses me because the llvm definition cannot be mapped to machine code. > > For instance I come across (1) and I reduce it to (2). However a copy instruction cannot move from EDX to CX. What mechanics in LLVM will tell me that I cannot make this move during

Hi all, We are working on a backend for a machine that has 4-wide vector register & ops, *but* not vector loads. All the vector register elements are directly accesible, so VI1 reg (Vector Integer 1) has I4, I5, I6 and I7 as its (integer) subregisters. Subregisters of same reg *never* overlap. Therefore, vector loads are lowered to scalar loads followed by a chain of INSERT_VECTOR_ELTs. Then

Hello, some months ago i wrote to the mailing list asking some questions about register pairing, i've been experimenting several things with the help i got back then. Some background first: this issue is for a backend for an 8bit microcontroller with only 8bit regs, however it has a few 16bit instructions that only work with fixed register pairs, so it doesnt allow all combinations of regs.

On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Carlos Sánchez de La Lama wrote: > Which after register coalescing gets transformed into: > > 36 %reg16404:1<def> = LDWr %reg16384, 0; mem:LD4[<unknown>] > 76 %reg16394<def> = LDWr %reg16386<kill>, 0; mem:LD4[<unknown>] > 124 %reg16404<def> = INSERT_SUBREG %reg16404, %reg16394<kill>, 2 > 132

Hello! I'm working on a new back-end and have hit a bit of a snag. I'm working on getting selectcc working and have followed the MSP430 model of emitting a custom CMP and SELECT_CC node and matching that with a pseudo-instruction that has useCustomEmitter=1. However, my output ends up very wrong, despite the Machine code being initially correct: # Machine code for function func: Function

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

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > > On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > >> I've noticed this pattern happening with other operators aswell, but used xor in this example. As i said before, i tried with different register allocation orders, but it will produce always the same result. GCC is emitting longer

On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > I've noticed this pattern happening with other operators aswell, but used xor in this example. As i said before, i tried with different register allocation orders, but it will produce always the same result. GCC is emitting longer code, but since LLVM is so nearer to the optimal code sequence i wanted to reach it. In LLVM, copies are

Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. I've defined comparison def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>; But then I end up having the following bug: Code %0 = zext i8 %data to i32 %1 = zext i16 %crc to i32 %2 = xor i32 %1, %0 %3 = and i32 %2, 1 %4 =

I am wondering about register allocation when there is a kill flag on the MachineOperand. Do I need to remove the kill flag? This code below is just an example from test\CodeGen\X86\xor.ll # Machine code for function test3: Frame Objects: fi#-2: size=4, align=4, fixed, at location [SP+8] fi#-1: size=4, align=8, fixed, at location [SP+4] Function Live Outs: %EAX BB#0: derived from LLVM BB

On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: > Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. > > I've defined comparison > > > def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>; > > > > > But then I end up having the following bug: > >

On 1 Oct 2010, at 13:35, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> Bill Wendling wrote: >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>>> >>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>>>>

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> Bill Wendling wrote: >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>>> >>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>>>> >>>>> I've

On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >> >> I've defined comparison >> >> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>;

On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >> >>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>> >>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>>> >>>> I've defined comparison >>>> >>>> def

On Sep 21, 2010, at 2:45 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > fatal error: error in backend: Ran out of registers during register allocation! > Please check your inline asm statement for invalid constraints: > INLINEASM <es:>, 0, 10, %reg16396<def>, 10, %reg16397<def>, 10, %reg16398<def>, 10, %reg16399<def>, 10, %reg16400<def>, 10, %reg16401<def>,10,

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >> >>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>> >>> I've defined comparison >>> >>> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set

Hi everyone, I have the following code (as part of a larger function): %0 = icmp eq i16 %a, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %0, label %bb1, label %bb I would like to match this with a BRCOND, but all I get is an error message when compiling the above code that say: LLVM ERROR: Cannot yet select: 0x170f200: ch = br_cc 0x170f000, 0x170ed00, 0x170dc60, 0x170ec00, 0x170ef00 [ID=19]

Dale, Sorry, I see you did say I should run the gcc tests. I apologize for forgetting this. I'll work on getting them to run here. Chris et. all, I have a fix for the assertion failure in the enclosed llvmmultalt8.patch file. I didn't realize the input constraints could have different numbers of alternatives from the outputs, which now makes sense. The pr20314-2.c file now compiles

Please test if r115571 has fixed it. Evan On Oct 4, 2010, at 5:00 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >> >>> Bill Wendling wrote: >>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: