similar to: [LLVMdev] updating

Hi Quentin, Jonas looked further into the problem below, and asked me to submit his patch. Note the we have our own out-of-tree target, and we have not been able to reproduce this problem on an in-tree target. /Patrik Hägglund [MachineSinking] Conservatively clear kill flags after coalescing. This solves the problem of having a kill flag inside a loop with a definition of the register prior to

<retitling to be useful> LLVM shouldn't have a fixed point type class. You should just use standard integer types. Supporting fixed point and saturation should by done by adding new operations to llvm IR. If you're interested in this, I'd suggest starting by implementing these as intrinsics. If it makes sense over time we can change them to primitive instructions if there is

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Jonas Paulsson <jnspaulsson at hotmail.com> wrote: > all right, no fixed point type in LLVM :-( > > May I ask then, what could one expect from various optimizations when using > intrinsics to support the fixed point type? LTO, Value optimizations, mem ?? You'd have to implement explicit support for the new intrinsics in various places. For

Hi Jonas, Thanks for your patience. After spending some time looking at the additional output you gave me, I agree that your fix is the right one. I was worried that this problem may arise because we were spilling not real user, but in fact what I thought was the problem is an optimization we could do :). See my comments inlined for a few nitpicks before you commit. Thanks again, -Quentin On

Hi, is it possible to reduce link time by excluding unused target backends? I would like to type tools/llc make -target=... , and just build it for one backend. /Jonas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110311/c2179915/attachment.html>

You probably meant to send this to LLVMdev as well. Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:26:03 +0100 From: Jonas Paulsson <jnspaulsson at hotmail.com> To: <edwintorok at gmail.com> Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 77, Issue 41 Yes, the new type is simply a static object managed by Type and LLVMContext. This is only referred to by Values of fixed point type.

Hi Quentin, Jonas, Splitting fits in with PBQP reasonably well, at least conceptually. The PBQP graph is designed to be mutable, so there is no problem with updating it when splitting. As I see it, there are two logical places to integrate splitting into PBQP: 1) Split during spilling -- If a PBQP solution selects the spill option for a node, rather than spill immediately, split the interval

Hi Jonas, I won’t have time to look at it this week after all. I’ll try to do that next week. If you do not hear back from me by end of next, do not hesitate to ping me! Cheers, -Quentin > On Apr 22, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 11:49 PM, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com

Hi, I wonder if it is okay to add an operand that is not part of MCInstrDesc to an MI after isel? There are things going on like instruction combining, rematerialization etc, which may call MI with TI->get(opcode). If an MI would get replaced with a new instance of itself in this way, any previously added operands would get lost, as they are not part of the MCInstrDesc. RegAlloc, does

Both approaches are not exclusive. I would even think it makes sense to have a pre-split pass to prepare the graph, with a global view, and later on use use trySplit (or an equivalent) to handle the local coloring issues. From: Quentin Colombet [mailto:qcolombet at apple.com] Sent: 09 March 2015 23:08 To: Lang Hames Cc: Jonas Paulsson; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; Arnaud De Grandmaison Subject:

On Sep 5, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> wrote: > clearKillFlags seems a little "overkill" to me. In this case you could just simply transfer the value of the kill flag from the SrcReg to the DstReg. We are extending the live-range of SrcReg. I do not see how you could relate that to the kill flag of DstReg. Therefore, I still think, this is the

Hi, I have worked a little on the PBQP register allocator, and it is quite clear (at least to me) that it is not even a serious alternative to RegAllocGreedy at the moment, due to the poor handling of spilling. As Arnaud wrote below, it is not optimizing spilling at all, but rather just spills anything that does not get an assignment. The result is a lot more spill/reload instructions than

I looked at SplitKit, but I am not sure how to best do it, so it would be great if you could take a look. /Jonas On 2015-04-21 19:35, Quentin Colombet wrote: >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: >> >> >>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 05:39, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> wrote: >>> >>>

Hi, I am looking for a way to rewrite induction variables to use an addition of -1 whenever possible (and not otherwise unprofitable). This is needed to utilize hardware loop instructions, which are present on SystemZ (branch on count). Later in the backend, an 'add -1; compare w/ 0; jne 0'-sequence can be replaced with a brct instruction. I could not find any way in the LSR pass to

Hi Jonas, > On Apr 20, 2015, at 4:03 AM, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > > After Simple Register Coalescing. Is the code you have pasted with the PHIs feed to the register coalescer? I am trying to understand the setting to help debugging the problem. Also, what does -debug-only=regalloc tell you? Thanks, -Quentin > >

Hi Jonas, Are you talking specifically about the induction variable? You might look at what I did for PowerPC's counter-based loops (lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCCTRLoops.cpp, etc.). -Hal ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonas Paulsson via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, March 28,

Hi, all right, no fixed point type in LLVM :-( May I ask then, what could one expect from various optimizations when using intrinsics to support the fixed point type? LTO, Value optimizations, mem ?? Are you saying it is feasible to add intrinsics and some extra optimizers for these, then? Best regards, Jonas > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] fixed point types > From: clattner at apple.com >

Hi Jonas, When is the MachineVerifier complaining? I mean after which pass? Thanks, -Quentin > On Apr 17, 2015, at 7:17 AM, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks for answering, but the COPY is there already from after isel. It is a copy of a subreg, after a a call returning 64 bits. > > call

Hi, I would be happy to give it a try :-) The fact that AA was added at a later point explains the situation a bit, as much fewer SUs should end up in RejectMemNodes without it. RejectMemNodes is bad in that it mixes all the SUs together again, after having gone through the work of separating them by analyzing their underlying objects. It is also very confusing to have two "stages" of

On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:33 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jonas Paulsson" <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:22:49 AM >> Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] alias analysis in backend