Displaying 20 results from an estimated 100 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Trouble with virtual registers"
2013 Jan 18
0
[LLVMdev] llvm backend porting question ,
I start my porting for picoblaze,the soft cpu for fpga ,which is
designed by XILINX from MSP430 porting .
After some day's work , somethinig looks good , for it can generate
for some simple C program:
eg :
int f1(int a)
{
return a+1;
}
but it failed with this :
char f()
{
char a;
a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++; a++;
a++; a++; a++; a++;
2017 Mar 22
2
Building LLVM on Linux, executing on Windows 10 Linux Subsystem
Our out-of-tree LLVM compiler is configured and built on Linux, but I cannot
get it to run under the Windows 10 Linux Subsystem.
When run in this context it reports a crash:
warning: Error disabling address space randomisation: Success
warning: linux_ptrace_test_ret_to_nx: PTRACE_KILL waitpid returned -1:
Interrupted system call
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
2004 Aug 27
2
[LLVMdev] PrologEpilogInserter question
Hello,
after some time I'm trying to build my code with the current CVS of LLVM, and
have a problem. The mentioned file, around line 184, contains:
if (FixedSlot == FixedSpillSlots+NumFixedSpillSlots) {
// Nope, just spill it anywhere convenient.
FrameIdx = FFI->CreateStackObject(RegInfo->getSpillSize(Reg)/8,
2020 Jun 08
2
Nested instruction patterns rejected by GlobalISel when having registers in Defs
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for replying; I was hoping to get in touch with you on this issue.
I had a look at how SelectionIDAG does it when generating the matcher table,
and it does consider the implicit defs as additional output. Here is the
match table generated for the pattern:
/* 0*/ OPC_CheckOpcode, TARGET_VAL(ISD::SIGN_EXTEND),
/* 3*/ OPC_MoveChild0,
/* 4*/ OPC_CheckOpcode,
2013 Nov 18
2
[LLVMdev] Unaligned load/store for callee-saved 128-bit registers
On my (out-of-tree) target I have 16 128-bit registers.
Unaligned load/store are illegal. (must 16-bytes aligned)
8 of those registers are defined as callee-saved and 8 caller-saved.
The default stack size is 4 bytes.
The target implements dynamic stack realign to make sure the stack will
always be aligned correctly when necessary.
Yet I am still getting unaligned load/store when running this
2013 Nov 18
0
[LLVMdev] Unaligned load/store for callee-saved 128-bit registers
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francois Pichet" <pichet2000 at gmail.com>
> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:26:30 PM
> Subject: [LLVMdev] Unaligned load/store for callee-saved 128-bit registers
>
>
>
> On my (out-of-tree) target I have 16 128-bit registers.
>
2013 Nov 21
2
[LLVMdev] Unaligned load/store for callee-saved 128-bit registers
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> To: "Francois Pichet" <pichet2000 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:45:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Unaligned load/store for callee-saved 128-bit registers
>
> ----- Original
2013 Nov 21
0
[LLVMdev] Unaligned load/store for callee-saved 128-bit registers
BTW I managed to get around this problem by flagging all the 128-bit
registers as caller saved only.
On my system, vector registers are more likely to be used on leaf functions
anyway.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> > To: "Francois
2013 Nov 21
2
[LLVMdev] Unaligned load/store for callee-saved 128-bit registers
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francois Pichet" <pichet2000 at gmail.com>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "Chad Rosier" <mcrosier at codeaurora.org>, "Jakob Stoklund Olesen" <jolesen at apple.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing
> List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, November
2013 Mar 06
1
[LLVMdev] Assertion failed after my storeRegToStackSlot/loadFromStackSlot
Hi Lang.
Thank you. I added pseudo-instructions for spill/reloads and expanded it
in expandPostRAPseudo.
Regards,
Dmitriy.
04.03.2013 8:24, Lang Hames wrote:
> Hi Dmitriy,
>
> As you've seen our current spill code assumes that spill/reloads are
> single instructions. I think the best way to work around this is to
> introduce load/store pseudo-instructions and expand these
2013 Feb 23
2
[LLVMdev] Assertion failed after my storeRegToStackSlot/loadFromStackSlot
Hi All.
I'm writing storeRegToStackSlot and loadFromStackSlot function for my
Target. This Target can store/load one byte (not all word) from
FrameIndex. If I need to store 16 bit register I will must to split it
to two instruction like this:
BuildMI(MBB, MI, dl, get(Z80::LD8xmr))
.addFrameIndex(FrameIndex).addImm(0)
.addReg(SrcReg, 0, Z80::subreg_lo);
BuildMI(MBB, MI, dl,
2013 Mar 04
0
[LLVMdev] Assertion failed after my storeRegToStackSlot/loadFromStackSlot
Hi Dmitriy,
As you've seen our current spill code assumes that spill/reloads are single
instructions. I think the best way to work around this is to introduce
load/store pseudo-instructions and expand these after register allocation.
Cheers,
Lang.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Dmitriy Limonov <earl at excluzive.ws> wrote:
> Hi All.
>
> I'm writing
2012 Sep 07
0
[LLVMdev] FastRegAlloc (wrongly?) marking physregs as free
Hi all,
I am using the fast register allocator on a partially allocated machine function. I have noticed reserved registers (i.e. liveins) are marked as free after first use (in usePhysReg(..) method). This seems an error to me as a livein might be still used later in the basic block.
As I understand this should check for isKill() before marking it as free, but I see it even *sets* the kill
2012 Mar 30
1
[LLVMdev] load instruction memory operands value null
Hi,
For a custom target, there is a pass to perform memory dependence analysis, where, i need to get memory pointer for "load instruction". I want to check the pointer alias behavior. I am getting this by considering the memoperands for the load instruction.
For "load instruction", Machine Instruction dumps as below:
vr12<def> = LD_Iri %vr2<kill>, 0;
2006 May 15
1
[LLVMdev] Re: MRegisterInfo::storeRegToStackSlot question
Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> in LLVM CVS the afore-mentioned function has 'const TargetRegisterClass*'
>> parameter, that is not documented.
>>
>> Can somebody explain what does it mean?
>
> Basically, it gives the target more information about the spill. In
> particular, it specifies the register class to use
2014 May 27
3
[LLVMdev] Question about callee saved registers in x86
Hi llvmdev,
I'm trying to figure how llvm remembers stack slots allotted to callee
saved registers on x86. In particular, llvm pushes registers in
decreasing order of FrameIdxs [1], so the offsets they get (as
returned by MFI->getObjectOffset) don't directly correspond to their
actual stack locations. In X86FrameLowering's
emitCalleeSavedFrameMoves, when emitting DWARF
2008 Apr 24
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: PowerPC tail call optimization patch
The patch is in
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20080421/061548.html
.
Okay to commit :)
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer
<arnold.schwaighofer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another round :)
>
> I'll post the patch to llvm-commits cause i guess people might get
> annoyed by my series of patches :).
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at
2008 Feb 23
1
[LLVMdev] Obligatory monthly tail call patch
Hello everybody, hi Evan,
this patch changes the lowering of arguments for tail call optimized
calls. Before arguments that could be overwritten by each other were
explicitly lowered to a stack slot, not giving the register allocator
a chance to optimize. Now a sequence of copyto/copyfrom virtual
registers ensures that arguments are loaded in (virtual) registers
before they are lowered to the
2014 May 30
2
[LLVMdev] Question about callee saved registers in x86
On 31.5.2014 2:04, Pasi Parviainen wrote:
> On 28.5.2014 2:57, Sanjoy Das wrote:
>> Hi llvmdev,
>>
>> I'm trying to figure how llvm remembers stack slots allotted to callee
>> saved registers on x86. In particular, llvm pushes registers in
>> decreasing order of FrameIdxs [1], so the offsets they get (as
>> returned by MFI->getObjectOffset) don't
2008 Apr 24
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: PowerPC tail call optimization patch
Another round :)
I'll post the patch to llvm-commits cause i guess people might get
annoyed by my series of patches :).
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
.
>> +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call,
>> ...
> That's fine. Please break it into two parts and move the target
> independent part