similar to: [LLVMdev] ScheduleDAG Question

On 08/27/2010 12:13, Dale Johannesen wrote: > I don't think I believe this; emitPrologue should not be generating a > TCRETURN at all, and line 1037 is generating a PROLOG_LABEL. Why do > you say it's a TCRETURN? Sorry, my bad. I have set breakpoints by MI addresses. But it turns out that these addresses were reused and the second MIs created at these particular addressed

Hello, I've made some fair progress on a target for 6502 family CPUs recently, but I've run into an error I'm not sure how to address. I've ruminated over it for about a week now, trying various things and not having any success. It seems to scale with the number of routines in my .ll file, which I am trying to run through llc. I get the following stack dump from an assertion:

On Jan 3, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2014, at 4:58 AM, Haishan <hndxvon at 163.com> wrote: > >> >> At 2014-01-01 04:36:21,"Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Dec 31, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Haishan <hndxvon at 163.com> wrote: >> My update steps are shown

At 2014-01-01 04:36:21,"Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Haishan <hndxvon at 163.com> wrote: Hi, I insert a new machine basic block(MBB) before Greedy Register Allocation, after Simple Register Coalescing. But I encounter a fatal error "regalloc = ... not currently supported with -O0". I use command line with opt level

On Jan 3, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 3, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 4:58 AM, Haishan <hndxvon at 163.com> wrote: >>>

Here is a series of patches replacing EVT with MVT at a number of places in TargetLowering. The last two patches are related cleanups in SelectionDAGBuilder. /Patrik Hägglund > git log --stat --reverse origin/master.. commit 8dabe3eb005360347eabb86a2e88c3b6e9098ed5 Author: Patrik Hägglund <patrik.h.hagglund at ericsson.com> Date: Tue Dec 4 10:37:37 2012 +0100 Change

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Dec 31, 2008, at 5:57 AM, srs wrote >> Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >>>> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which

On Dec 31, 2008, at 5:57 AM, srs wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: >> >> >>> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >>> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which >>> ASSERT's in >>> VC++'s vector[] implementation (when

Hi all, While testing my compiler on win32 in JIT mode, I ran into a couple of issues: 1. I linked the compiler with the lib files resulting from the cmake created VS.NET build. While everything built just fine, the ExecutionEngine::create call always returned NULL. The fix was to also link with JIT.obj (thanks aKor for pointing me in the right direction). I would have thought that linking

On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: > 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug > mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which ASSERT's in > VC++'s vector[] implementation (when _HAS_ITERATOR_DEBUGGING is on). > > As a work-around, I commented out the debug code (see "patch" below.) > > What would the

Just noticed that when we generate a custom lowering for some atomics that we forgot to transfer the MemOperand to the new instruction that touches memory. -- Mon Ping Index: lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp (revision 53702) +++ lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp (working copy) @@

Hello, Still trying to write a custom scheduler, I stumbled accross a highly suspicious code in all schedulers. In both ScheduleDAGFast.cpp and ScheduleDAGRRList.cpp, one can find this piece of code: SUnit *CopyFromSU = CreateNewSUnit(NULL); and then in the same files: SUnit *CreateNewSUnit(SDNode *N) { [...] SUnit *NewNode = NewSUnit(N); And finally in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.cpp: SUnit

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: > > >> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which ASSERT's in >> VC++'s vector[] implementation (when _HAS_ITERATOR_DEBUGGING is on). >> >> As a work-around, I commented out the debug

Hello all, I am a LLVM newer who want to add a new backend(EBC) into LLVM. After coping the related files from another target and modifying it, I meet a problem when I build the project. The error message is as follows: ================================================================ [ 94%] Built target llvm-dis Linking CXX executable ../../bin/llvm-mc Undefined symbols:

On Jan 4, 2014, at 4:38 AM, Haishan <hndxvon at 163.com> wrote: > At 2014-01-04 06:11:38,"Jakob Stoklund Olesen" <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > >> He really just wants to rerun LiveIntervals analysis, but LiveVariables is no longer available. Would it work just to clear all

Hi all, There are many assertions sprinkled throughout the llvm codebase, which is a GoodThing. Most of the assertions even have informative messages, which is a BetterThing. However, assertion messages are static strings, and don't include any information about the particular object/value which caused the assertion. In a 'data oriented' system like llvm, this makes it really

We are having a strange issue with LLVM 2.6 running on MSVC in debug mode. When compiling in debug mode, iterator debugging is turned on. In the case of std::priority_queue, iterator debugging checks to make sure that the queue is in proper order and will abort if it isn't. Recently, we have started to see this error in the DAG. Call Stack: SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction:339

On Aug 27, 2010, at 11:53 AMPDT, Yuri wrote: > On 08/27/2010 11:32, Yuri wrote: >> As I understand only one of TCRETURNri64 and RET should be created. >> I have sources of rev.112200. >> >> Here is the stack when TCRETURNri64 instruction is created: >> #1 0x0000000802c8b4e2 in llvm::MachineFunction::CreateMachineInstr >> (this=0x30eb000, TID=@0x803a78940,

On Mar 12, 2009, at 1:47 AM, someguy wrote: > However, assertion messages are static strings, and don't include any > information about the particular object/value which caused the > assertion. In a 'data oriented' system like llvm, this makes it really > difficult to pinpoint which node is actually triggering the assertion. > > For example, in

On May 25, 2010, at 2:58 PM, Smith, Tim wrote: > We are having a strange issue with LLVM 2.6 running on MSVC in debug mode. > > When compiling in debug mode, iterator debugging is turned on. In the case of std::priority_queue, iterator debugging checks to make sure that the queue is in proper order and will abort if it isn’t. > > Recently, we have started to see this error in