similar to: [LLVMdev] Too many load/store in Machine code represtation

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

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

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 =

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 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 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 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

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:

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 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 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 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

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.

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

Hi, >> DAGCombiner::visitBRCOND() has code: >> >> SDValue N1 = N->getOperand(1); >> SDValue N2 = N->getOperand(2); >> >> ... >> >> SDNode *Trunc = 0; >> if (N1.getOpcode() == ISD::TRUNCATE&& N1.hasOneUse()) { >> // Look past truncate. >> Trunc = N1.getNode(); >> N1 = N1.getOperand(0);

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

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 :

Hello again, I am trying to implement an optimization pass for PowerPC such that simple loops use the special "counter register" (CTR) to track the induction variable. This is helpful because, in addition to reducing register pressure, there is a combined decrement-compare-and-branch instruction BZND (there are also other related instructions). I started this process by converting the