similar to: [LLVMdev] ARMLoadStoreOptimizer bug

I've committed a fix: r149970. Please try it. I would really appreciate it if you can provide us with a test case (unreduced test case is fine). Evan On 2012 2 4, at 09:46, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > Evan & llvmdev, > > I'm seeing a case where ARM Load/Store optimizer is breaking code. I have not had any luck trying to come up with a minimal example;

Evan, A test case is extremely hard to pin down. For months now, we've noticed our stage 2 LLVM ARM build has sporadic failures. Tests would start failing, then start working, then start failing, etc, for no apparent reason. The test case I have (llc.bc, which is all of llc in bitcode form, 44.8 MB), only works against r149814. And in this case, there are only 2 cases of the miscompile

Hi, guys I am interesting about how to get the switch case value form the Machine Instruction. I know the switch will be converted to jump-table in the Machine Instruction. And in the phase CodeGen , the case-value of SwitchInst can get esasly. but it seems no case -value in Machine Instruction. The MI as follows: Frame Objects: fi#0: size=1, align=0, at location [SP] fi#1: size=4,

Some glitch in the emailer? I have received this message 3 times in a row!? I think that by the time it gets as far as MI-level there is no reversible method of determining the 'case' label at all. The reason I say this, is that I have often seen optimisations that coalesce groups of values into interesting logical tests and jump-tables are completely avoided. For example, a simple

Thanks for your help. Is there possible I can get the realily case value form the MI? For the case in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34902. as follows. ############################# * GCC v7.1 generated assembly ############################# ** Options: -Os -marm -march=armv7-a foo: @ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0 @ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0 sub

Hi all, I got a silly bug when compiling our project with the latest Clang. Here's the outputted assembly: > tst r3, #255 > strbeq r6, [r7] > ldreq r6, [r4, r6, lsl #2] > strne r6, [r7, #4] > ldr r6, [r4, r6, lsl #2] > bx r6 For the code to execute correctly, either the _ldr_ should be a _ldrne_ instruction or the _ldreq_ instruction should be removed. The error seems to

Hello David, > I'm seeing a case where ARM Load/Store optimizer is breaking code. I have > not had any luck trying to come up with a minimal example; it is breaking in > our stage 2 LLVM build. Still, *any* testcase is better than no testcase :) -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Hi I write a machinefunction pass to print all the machinefunction's machine instructions. My target architecture is ARM. However, I don't understand some part of the machine instructions. Below is some of the assembly language for function A. .text:0001C034 STMFD SP!, {R4,R10,R11,LR} > .text:0001C038 ADD R11, SP, #8 > .text:0001C03C

Hi Krzysztof Thank you very much for your quick and clear reply. I know that MIR may not match hardware instructions directly. However, I think the semantics should be similar. For example, the first instruction is a store-multiple instruction in ARM. I think the first four MIR I shown should have the similar semantics with the first three hardware instructions. I still cannot see the

My home e--mail is down, which is where I get my llvm feeds, so please copy any replies to this address as well as the list. The call instruction can define implicit defs. What are the semantics when the call includes a use with a kill of some register and also an implicit def of that register? Is the register to be considered live out at that point? I've found a failing testcase where

Anton, I'm afraid I really can't produce a meaningful example. The bug is extremely sensitive to code placement, optimization. I had to do a terrible amount of drugdery to find it in the first place. Here's how I found the bug: 1) Stage 1: Compile LLVM with build/host x86, target ARM. 2) Stage 2: Cross-compile LLVM with host ARM, target ARM, using the stage 1 Clang/LLVM. 3) Use the

Hi, guys I am interesting about how to get the switch case value form the Machine Instruction. I know the switch will be converted to jump-table in the Machine Instruction. And in the phase CodeGen , the case-value of SwitchInst can get esasly. but it seems no case -value in Machine Instruction. The MI as follows: Frame Objects: fi#0: size=1, align=0, at location [SP] fi#1: size=4,

Hi, I'm working on the iterated register coalescing graph coloring allocator and try to test it with all backends available currently in LLVM. Initial tests with most of the backends are successful. It turned out that my allocator triggers a specific assertion in the RegScavenger and only for the ARM target. It looks like the LR register is used for frame pointer related things, but it is

2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: > > On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > >> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: >> Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) >> %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0, %reg0 >> *** STR %LR<kill>, %R0<kill>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0, Mem:ST(4,4) >> [0x8fc2d68 + 0]

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: > Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) > %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0, %reg0 > *** STR %LR<kill>, %R0<kill>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0, Mem:ST(4,4) > [0x8fc2d68 + 0] > %LR<def> = LDR <fi#0>, %reg0, 0, 14, %reg0 >

Doh. I missed the list in my first reply... Here's the replay of the conversation: ----- Renato: On 10 August 2015 at 14:05, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > --> %SP<def,tied1> = t2LDMIA_RET %SP<tied0>, pred:8, pred:%CPSR, > %R7<def>, %PC<def>, %SP<imp-use,undef>, %R7<imp-use,undef>, >

Hi again, 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>: > > > On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Roman Levenstein <romix.llvm at googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: >>> >>> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: >>> >>>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1:

On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Roman Levenstein <romix.llvm at googlemail.com > wrote: > 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: >> >> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: >> >>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1: >>> Predecessors according to CFG: 0x8fdac90 (#0) >>> %R0<def> = MOVi 0, 14, %reg0,

Hi, I’m facing a crash issue (--target=arm-linux-gnueabi -march=armv8-a+crc -mfloat-abi=hard) and debugging the problem, I found that an intended branch was not taken due to bad code generation after the Post RA Scheduler pass. A CMPri instruction after an INLINEASM block (which inturn contains a cmp, bne instruction) is being moved before the INLINEASM block incorrectly resulting in two

On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Bjorn De Sutter <bjorn.desutter at elis.ugent.be> wrote: > I am working on a backend for a CGRA architecture with advanced predicate support (as on EPIC machines and as first used in the OpenIMPACT compiler). Until last month, the backend was working fine, but since the r161643 commit by stoklund, my backend doesn't work anymore. I think I noticed some