similar to: [LLVMdev] Optimization passes break machine instructions on new backend

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

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 register allocation, or how can I tell from (1) that I cannot execute

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.

Hello Per, > The CMPrr instruction is moved down to after the PHI node. My guess is that > the 'dead' in CFR<imp-def,dead> is to blame, but I can't see what I'm doing > differently from MSP430/sparc that makes this not work. Any help GREATLY > appreciated! It seems like no use of CFR after CMP, indeed. How condbranches on your platform look like (patterns, etc.)

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]

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 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

But in the first version it's used on the next row: %reg16388<def> = CMPrr %reg16384, %reg16385, %CFR<imp-def,dead>; IntRegs:%reg16388,16384,16385 SKIPCOND 1, *%CFR<imp-use>* Or doesn't that count? Following are patters for cmp and skipcond: def cmpcc : SDNode<"CSISD::CMP", SDTIntBinOp, [SDNPOutFlag]>; let Defs = [CFR] in { def CMPrr :

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

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

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

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

There are a lot of load/store instructions for accessing variable in stack slot. The following message is use "llc -march=ppc32" command and dump from MachineFunction. %reg16384<def> = LWZ 0, <fi#6>; mem:LD4[%b] GPRC:%reg16384 %reg16385<def> = LWZ 0, <fi#5>; mem:LD4[%c] GPRC:%reg16385 %reg16386<def> = ADD4 %reg16384<kill>,

Hi, I'm trying to emit a conditional move in the ARM backend for a custom intrinsic. Basically, I want to emit the following the following instruction sequence: cmp r0, r1 moveq r2, #1 To implement this, I first emit a compare instruction and then I'm trying to emit the conditional move, which is failing. BuildMI(&MBB, DL, TII->get(ARM::CMPrr))

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 =

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

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 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 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. >>>>>