similar to: [LLVMdev] PreRASched

Hello all Currently I want to use the accurate liveness information when writing a *target independent* FunctionPass based on LLVM. The one I can find is LiveValues, a FunctionPass. But it doesn't use classic dataflow equation and can only provide approximate and conservative result. The another one is LiveVariables which use classic data flow equation, but it comes from Clang's analysis

At 2014-01-01 04:36:21,"Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Haishan <hndxvon at 163.com> wrote: Hi, I insert a new machine basic block(MBB) before Greedy Register Allocation, after Simple Register Coalescing. But I encounter a fatal error "regalloc = ... not currently supported with -O0". I use command line with opt level

On May 19, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote: > Hi, > > I am combining 16-bit registers to a 32 bit register in order to make a wide store, as per below: > > 732 %reg16506:hi16<def,dead> = COPY %reg16445<kill>; > 740 %reg16506:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16468<kill>; > 748 %r3<def,dead> = store %reg16506<kill>, %r3, > > As you can

I though LiveVariables may be invalidated by LiveIntervals, but it's declared not: void LiveIntervals::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addPreserved<LiveVariables>(); AU.addRequired<LiveVariables>(); ... LiveInterval may coalesce virtual registers and remove identity moves instructions: bool LiveIntervals::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &fn) {

Hi, I insert a new machine basic block(MBB) before Greedy Register Allocation, after Simple Register Coalescing. But I encounter a fatal error "regalloc = ... not currently supported with -O0". I use command line with opt level O2, not O0. The probable reason of this error is that no LiveInterval information for newly MBB which is used by Register Allocation. And, LiveIntervals depend

So what is the status about LiveVariables. Is there a plan to remove it? After searching in old lvm-dev-mails it is mentioned that LiveVariable still exists due to one pass needing it. And a comment in TargetPassConfig.cpp indicates that the pass in question is TwoAddressInstruction: // FIXME: Once TwoAddressInstruction pass no longer uses kill flags, // LiveVariables can be removed

I am observing poor instruction scheduling in my out-of-tree target. The problem is an over-constrained scheduling DAG. In particular, the DAG includes spurious output dependencies on physical, non-register-allocatable registers. MISched already includes code to avoid this problem. However that code relies on information clobbered by the earlier pass LiveVariables. I wonder whether this is a

I just enabled a new algorithm for computing live intervals that doesn't depend on LiveVariables. The goal is to get rid of the LiveVariables analysis completely, but unfortunately PHI elimination and the two-address pass still use LiveVariables for some optimizations. They don't require it, they work just fine without it at -O0. They use it to generate better code in some cases. The

Ok, i'm having a problem with understanding the allocating of registers. I've written in the "addPassesToEmitAssembly()" the passes to create the assembly code, as in the PowerPC example. I'ved tried filling up as much of the code in <Target>RegisterInfo.cpp (Register/Frame code) to handle writing and reading from stack. The allocation method I used was

Hi (Jakob), in reference to the prior message below, I have the following follow-up questions, as I also need a scheduling pass prior to regalloc. I need to do this in order to set VLIW-flags, so that the RA is aware of several MI's per cycle with a redefined LiveRange::overlap-function. On a multiple-issue cycle, a register that gets killed can be reused by another MI - these live ranges do

Hello, this is another "allocator crashes hard when I pass wrong data to it" issue. Due to a bug, my machine code looked like this: # Machine code for list_sequence(): <fi #-2> is 4 bytes fixed at location [SP-24] <fi #-1> is 4 bytes fixed at location [SP-20] entry (0x8060970, LLVM BB @0x805da88): %reg1024 = load <fi#-1> %reg1025 = load

Hi, I am combining 16-bit registers to a 32 bit register in order to make a wide store, as per below: 732 %reg16506:hi16<def,dead> = COPY %reg16445<kill>; 740 %reg16506:lo16<def> = COPY %reg16468<kill>; 748 %r3<def,dead> = store %reg16506<kill>, %r3, As you can see, LiveVariables has marked the high part dead, even though the super-register is used at

<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div dir="ltr" > </div> <div dir="ltr" >Hi all,</div> <div dir="ltr" > </div> <div

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:15:30PM -0700, John Cortes wrote: > If I use any of the regalloc parameters (local, ...) I get an error in > the LiveVariable.cpp file, in the part that I think cheaks for dead > code because a Variable didn't have a defined Instance to a Machine > instruction. > > " llc: LiveVariables.cpp:86: void >

LiveVariables gives you something like liveness analysis: where each variable is alive, that is, across each basic blocks, where it is defined, and where it is killed. LiveIntervals gives you a linear representation of the variables as a set of intervals. Yes, it handle holes in the live ranges. There is a very nice description of these analysis and related data structures here:

I have seen INITIALIZE_PASS(LiveVariables, "livevars", "Live Variable Analysis", false, false); in the llvm/lib/codegen/LiveVariables.cpp, where LiveVariables is a subclass of MachineFunctionPass, and #define INITIALIZE_PASS(passName, arg, name, cfg, analysis) \ static RegisterPass<passName> passName ## _info(arg, name, cfg, analysis) in PassSupport.h Is this code used

Is LiveVariables updated correctly when TII->RemoveBranch and TII->InsertBranch are called in the following piece of code? - MachineBasicBlock::updateTerminator() line 307 of MachineBasicBlock.cpp: if (FBB) { // The block has a non-fallthrough conditional branch. If one of its // successors is its layout successor, rewrite it to a fallthrough // conditional branch.

Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > LiveVariables gives you something like liveness analysis: where each > variable is alive, that is, across each basic blocks, where it is defined, > and where it is killed. If I read this correctly, it means that at each instruction there's a list of live variables? I'm trying to figure out how to get at this information to build the

On Apr 3, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Christopher Lamb wrote: > >> Can you dump out the machine basic block? It should have an >> implicit use of V4R0 at first ORI but it should not be marked kill. >> If it is marked kill, then you need to walk LiveVariables.cpp to >> find out why. > > Here is the beginning of the BB dump. > > entry (0x8503c80, LLVM BB @0x8501af0,

On 20/09/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > because LiveVariables do not provide an interface to iterate through > > all viritual registers. > > Ok, you could add a method to LiveVariables that returns > VirtRegInfo.size(). The virtual registers are defined by the range: > [MRegisterInfo::FirstVirtualRegister, >